It appears Roe is toast

[Elok]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

In before MWHC makes a drunk thread about it. Leaked draft indicates that what everybody has been expecting for months is, in fact, going to happen.

[PLATO]

Without making any judgment on abortion itself, this is the correct constitutional decision.

[Geronimo]

I didn't realize SCOTUS did leaks

[Wezil]

51%? More than that.

[-Jrabbit]

Women, Wezil. I was talking about Angry Women.
Also, I note that it was Polilitico.com, not the NY Times, that published it first.

[Elok]

Too lazy to look up the studies, but gender does not correlate meaningfully with opinion on abortion. A lot of women are quite vehemently pro-life, the same as a lot of men are fiercely pro-choice. The idea of female solidarity on this matter versus a patriarchy is mostly wishful thinking.

[Jon Miller]

I am anti-abortion (not for religious reasons but for scientific reasons), but recognize that the way to change the world is to change people's hearts and minds and most people are pro-choice. I don't think that banning abortion is currently what is needed.

I don't think that Roe was decided correctly. I would guess that reversing Roe is not the correct decision with our laws now and the place of precedence in our legal system.

JM
(I am fine with discouraging abortion. I am fine with the morning after pill. If people's hearts and minds were changed, I think that scientifically the correct time is about 6 weeks, with the beginning of brainwaves. )

[Elok]

IIUC this doesn't ban anything; it merely returns the matter to the states.

[Wezil]

Red states will become even ****tier. Yay!

[Wezil]

Without making any judgment on abortion itself, this is the correct constitutional decision.

Do you honestly think the USSC decisions are actually based upon law? They are clearly just another branch of partisan politics.

[Elok]

The impression that the court is largely about partisan politics springs largely from the Roe era AFAICT. Roe itself, whatever one thinks about abortion, was quite poorly argued and amounted to asserting a right out of whole cloth, then sitting on the argument for fifty years (as I recall even RBG, though obviously an abortion rights proponent, had a poor opinion of Roe's reasoning). If it comes to that, Griswold wasn't all that stellar either, but contraception is far, far less controversial now than abortion, so we all let that one slide.

[-Jrabbit]

The Christian right has been trying, for some time now, to redefine several forms of contraception as abortion.

[Elok]

I don't see that getting much traction, though.

[Wezil]

Are you arguing their decisions aren't partisan? Despite all evidence to the contrary?

[Jon Miller]

If we decide to have an abortion debate again, my position has changed.

JM
(Among other things, I now am pretty sure that the Biblical position is pro-choice, at least in some situations.)

[Donegeal]

Much like the act that produces it, I see pregnancy as a matter of consent. When a man has sex with a woman, he needs consent to use her body; and said woman can withdraw that consent at anytime. Likewise, a fetus is using a woman's body to grow. It's her body, and she can remove that consent. She just need to fully understand that removing that consent will kill the fetus. The question then becomes at what point can a woman no long remove consent to use her body?

[Elok]

Are you arguing their decisions aren't partisan? Despite all evidence to the contrary?

Not at all. But the perception that the Court is just a partisan tool to be pushed back and forth, depending who dies or retires during which presidency, appears to be a recent thing, and springs in large part from decisions made in the Roe era. Mostly Roe itself. As abortion is not mentioned nor alluded to in even the vaguest way by the Constitution, declaring it a constitutional right comes across as a bit of a stretch. During the same era there was a (now reversed) ruling declaring capital punishment unconstitutional, even though the possibility is pretty clearly contemplated by the Bill of Rights .

[Wezil]

The court rules on all sort of things not explicitly mentioned do they not? All sorts of privacy rights will be in doubt after this.

I get that you take an "originalist" position but it seems a flimsy approach for a centuries old document.

[giblets]

Well, the media is going to have lots of fun reporting about teenage white girls who were raped and can't get an abortion.

[Elok]

They'll bounce all over Vox and Slate and be broadly ignored elsewhere. Eventually they'll be too depressing for Vox and Slate readers to keep clicking on. The USA Today reader will frown and then move on to Marmaduke; the Fox News viewer will be too busy fuming over Connecticut passing laws to support nonprofits smuggling abortion pills through the mail.

[Wezil]

I'm curious to see the political and economic fallout over this.

Will this be a huge motivation for voters in November in States where it would matter? Polling consistently shows the public is largely opposed to overturning Roe but extra votes in NY or CA doesn't help Democrats.

What will the reaction be in the corporate world in red States that start passing bans?