It appears Roe is toast

[Elok]

Can't just put the lid back on Pandora's box and expect everything to go back to how it was before.

On the contrary, Roe is the single factor keeping the situation in "unnatural" stasis. People are pro-life or pro-choice and it doesn't matter because the SC won't allow anybody to actually put their money where their mouth is. There is effectively no outlet for pro-life anger but pushing for Roe's repeal, barring terrorism or the odd act of petty sabotage like requiring clinics to jump through impractical hoops. If this draft or something like it goes through, activists on the other side can decide between (A) focusing their energy on trying to get progressive-on-abortion justices confirmed for the next thirty years or (B) focusing on fighting at the state (or federal legislative) level to secure abortion rights now. One of those two strategies has a much, much higher likelihood of achieving concrete results in the near term.

If the court actually declares a nationwide constitutional right to fetal life, OTOH, the situation would be perfectly reversed. But that doesn't seem even remotely likely.

[Elok]

Roe was decided 7-2. Whatever your opinion on how well it was reasoned, it wasn't partisan.

It would only be strictly nonpartisan if it were 9-0, which was never going to happen. But that wasn't my point. I mean that by making such a sweeping overreach on such a sensitive subject, Roe made the Court into something tantamount to a legislative body, exempt from veto except by gradually voting out the undesirable justices over the course of decades. Which is to say, Roe played a key role in turning the Court into a political football in the first place. There was a time, not that long ago, when confirmation hearings were not a complete ridiculous spectacle. IIRC even Ginsburg was overwhelmingly confirmed, and she was several years after the Bork fiasco.

[Bereta_Eder]

I thought that was about second quality caviar

[Uncle Sparky]

I prefer a dark rye crispbread with roe, not toast.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

nothing will change... this is just the latest democratic diversion. remember, the midterms will drive many stories like this.

[PLATO]

A constitutional amendment is not just about having the numbers but having them in the right place (see previous). No, the pro-choice side will not convince 3/4 of the States to amend.

Gallup from about a year ago. 58-32. It's not even close.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/350804/...-roe-wade.aspx

So...by saying "in the right place" you seem to be calling into question the entire system of federal government. People tend to forget that the US was not set up to be one homogeneous country, but rather a collection of semi-sovereign states. This was to prevent exactly what you seem to be calling for...People from one geographic area imposing their will on people from other geographic areas. Only by consensus of the States can this be changed.

Now...just to be clear...I support abortion rights. I also support the Constitution and SCOTUS has made the right call. Since we agree that 3/4 of the States will not accept an amendment and I believe we can say from your poll that a large number of people in some states want abortion legal, then it follows that states where it is supported will have it legal and states where it is not supported will have it illegal. This is the function of the federal system and shows the system works. people from one geographic area (or state) cannot impose their will on people from another geographic area(or state).

What I hope is that Congress will pass an amendment and give it a 100 year certification deadline. Then as the issue becomes more apparent as to why it is a good idea we can hope that eventually we will get to the 3/4 mark and the issue will be settled.

[Uncle Sparky]

2022 was the year that lynching black people became a hate crime in the US...
The ERA (men & women being equal) has never been ratified...

[Elok]

Hypothetically, suppose Roe had gone the other way, very hard, and declared based on equal protection that fetuses were citizens from conception onwards and had a right to life. This would be equally ungrounded in the Constitution. Do you (any of you) not believe that this would lead to a ferocious, angry reaction from the Left, and to decades of mirror-image attempts to ensure that only abortion-tolerant justices got confirmed, with lots of obligatory "well of course Roe is settled law" double-talk? That there would not be the odd spasm of violence, that progressives would never stoop to undermining the law in spirit or in fact to get what they wanted? If you understand this, you understand what I mean by Roe inaugurating a new age of partisanship. Some issues are too sensitive and important to be decided by nine unelected officials who can't be voted out.

[PLATO]

It would only be strictly nonpartisan if it were 9-0, which was never going to happen. But that wasn't my point. I mean that by making such a sweeping overreach on such a sensitive subject, Roe made the Court into something tantamount to a legislative body, exempt from veto except by gradually voting out the undesirable justices over the course of decades. Which is to say, Roe played a key role in turning the Court into a political football in the first place. There was a time, not that long ago, when confirmation hearings were not a complete ridiculous spectacle. IIRC even Ginsburg was overwhelmingly confirmed, and she was several years after the Bork fiasco.

Interestingly enough...it was 5 Republican appointees and two democratic appointees that voted in favor and 2 democratic appointees that voted against. My how times have changed....

[PLATO]

Hypothetically, suppose Roe had gone the other way, very hard, and declared based on equal protection that fetuses were citizens from conception onwards and had a right to life. This would be equally ungrounded in the Constitution. Do you (any of you) not believe that this would lead to a ferocious, angry reaction from the Left, and to decades of mirror-image attempts to ensure that only abortion-tolerant justices got confirmed, with lots of obligatory "well of course Roe is settled law" double-talk? That there would not be the odd spasm of violence, that progressives would never stoop to undermining the law in spirit or in fact to get what they wanted? If you understand this, you understand what I mean by Roe inaugurating a new age of partisanship. Some issues are too sensitive and important to be decided by nine unelected officials who can't be voted out.

Exactly my point! I agree completely. Abortion was never a constitutional issue and should never have been heard by the court. This is clearly another example of legislators not having the guts to work through the hard decisions and trying to pawn off their work on the court system.

[giblets]

It's too late, they already made it a Supreme Court issue and if they go back on precedent they just further weaken their own legitimacy.

[PLATO]

It's too late, they already made it a Supreme Court issue and if they go back on precedent they just further weaken their own legitimacy.

[Wezil]

So...by saying "in the right place" you seem to be calling into question the entire system of federal government. People tend to forget that the US was not set up to be one homogeneous country, but rather a collection of semi-sovereign states. This was to prevent exactly what you seem to be calling for...People from one geographic area imposing their will on people from other geographic areas. Only by consensus of the States can this be changed.

I wasn't calling for anything and expressly said that the US is a republic. I wasn't passing any value judgement by my use of "right" simply saying (as I did earlier) that extra support in NY or CA on this issue does not help the pro-choice movement for just that reason. I think States ultimately having a veto over what I consider to be a fundamental right will lead to very bad outcomes in the end but I scratch my head about a lot of US legal/political decisions.

Now...just to be clear...I support abortion rights. I also support the Constitution and SCOTUS has made the right call. Since we agree that 3/4 of the States will not accept an amendment and I believe we can say from your poll that a large number of people in some states want abortion legal, then it follows that states where it is supported will have it legal and states where it is not supported will have it illegal. This is the function of the federal system and shows the system works. people from one geographic area (or state) cannot impose their will on people from another geographic area(or state).

We differ on the the issue of whether this is already a "right" based on how the constitution should be interpreted. And yes, I get the States rights thing. I think you guys already fought one another on that one. I know the importance it has. I don't think States should have the right to violate individual rights but there we are back at the previous paragraph.

What I hope is that Congress will pass an amendment and give it a 100 year certification deadline. Then as the issue becomes more apparent as to why it is a good idea we can hope that eventually we will get to the 3/4 mark and the issue will be settled.

From the Canadian perspective the importance this issue has in the US political realm is just astounding. Our last abortion law was struck down by the Supreme Court some 40 years ago and since then it has been deemed a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. No new legislation was ever passed and the anti-abortion political movement is mainly considered an unseemly rump of the Conservative party.

What bothers me about the US debate is the hypocrisy of the "pro-life" movement. The States most likely to legislate bans are also the States with the highest infant mortality rates, and childhood poverty rates. If they are so determined that every conception result in a birth then why don't they do more to motivate people to that outcome? It's hard not to see this as an issue of control.

[Jon Miller]

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?

Life is sort of different than the act of having sex.

JM

[Jon Miller]

It's too late, they already made it a Supreme Court issue and if they go back on precedent they just further weaken their own legitimacy.

This relates to my point that I think the proposed decision is wrong even though I disagreed with the initial Roe decision.

JM

[PLATO]

I wasn't calling for anything and expressly said that the US is a republic. I wasn't passing any value judgement by my use of "right" simply saying (as I did earlier) that extra support in NY or CA on this issue does not help the pro-choice movement for just that reason. I think States ultimately having a veto over what I consider to be a fundamental right will lead to very bad outcomes in the end but I scratch my head about a lot of US legal/political decisions.

What "you" consider a fundamental right is nothing more than an opinion when it comes to governance. Fundamental rights were set out in the constitution and the amendments that followed. For abortion to have this status then the amendment process is available at anytime. A woman's right to choose should be codified in the Constitution IMHO as should equal rights for women.

We differ on the the issue of whether this is already a "right" based on how the constitution should be interpreted. And yes, I get the States rights thing. I think you guys already fought one another on that one. I know the importance it has. I don't think States should have the right to violate individual rights but there we are back at the previous paragraph.

I am interested to know what part of the constitution you are referring to...seriously (I am open to broadening my understanding). Generally, Roe is thought of as a very poorly based decision with little constitutional merit...even by liberal attorneys. Yet it was all the SCOTUS could find to try and do what they knew should be done in the light of the legislative process punting their responsibility.

As far as "States Rights" that is not the issue here at all. The issue of State's rights is settled..the federal government is supreme. The issue here is the federal governments rights. these are clearly spelled out in the Constitution and equally clearly stated that any rights beyond those were reserved to the States or the People. That part of the equation has never truly been disagreed on or fought over.

From the Canadian perspective the importance this issue has in the US political realm is just astounding. Our last abortion law was struck down by the Supreme Court some 40 years ago and since then it has been deemed a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. No new legislation was ever passed and the anti-abortion political movement is mainly considered an unseemly rump of the Conservative party.

What bothers me about the US debate is the hypocrisy of the "pro-life" movement. The States most likely to legislate bans are also the States with the highest infant mortality rates, and childhood poverty rates. If they are so determined that every conception result in a birth then why don't they do more to motivate people to that outcome? It's hard not to see this as an issue of control.

Here we are in complete agreement.

[PLATO]

This relates to my point that I think the proposed decision is wrong even though I disagreed with the initial Roe decision.

JM

While this is hard to disagree with on the surface, I don't believe that because something incorrect was done in the past that it should not be corrected in the present.

What we don't need is the court moving back and forth on this issue every 30-50 years as justices with different interpretations of the court's role come and go. What we do need is something to spark Congress to get off their but and get an amendment out there that can eventually (hopefully) cure the problem for good. And, of course, we need people to get educated on the reality of the situation, which will be difficult in parts of the country.