Roe is gone! :D

[Jon Miller]

A relative in the midwest mentioned on Facebook that she had had to have abortive procedures twice to help her body deal with 2 of her miscarriages (to keep the dead babies from going septic inside of her). I hadn't really heard of this, but if it is common it would be a pretty big deal to have as an exception I would think (and I am pretty sure people are not considering it now, I know I wasn't... I barely thought of it because although it is occasionally mentioned no one puts any emphasis on it).

I don't know and didn't ask any details. She is probably part of the white suburban women that, while inherently conservative, did not support Trump but I am certain her area votes Republican.

JM

[Uncle Sparky]

Is Loving v. Virginia next?

[Elok]

Clarence Thomas's wife is white. Might have a hard time getting him on board.

[Egbert]

Be cheaper than a divorce if he wants her gone.

[Dauphin]

Are you suggesting that justices may make self-serving decisions, rather than dispassionately assess the law? Surely not!

[BeBMan]

How will abortion bans impact women's education, job chances, and the economy as a whole?

[Jon Miller]

It seems likely that the anti-abortion side is going to keep abortion front and center.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/25/roe-antiabortion-lawmakers-restrictions-state-legislatures/

On the heels of their greatest victory, antiabortion activists are eager to capitalize on their momentum by enshrining constitutional abortion bans, pushing Congress to pass a national prohibition, blocking abortion pills, and limiting people’s ability to get abortions across state lines.

JM

[My Wife Hates CIV]

[Jon Miller]

Thomas wants to ban contraception too.

And my relative would not have been helped by birth control.

JM

[Elok]

Thomas posted an opinion saying, "hey, maybe we should go after the other ass-pulls while we're at it." Nobody joined him and Alito at least stressed that he was only going after Roe. Now, it's possible that Thomas was saying the quiet part loud but I don't think the pro-life movement is all that heated up about contraception; in fact, there might well be significant disagreement there between hardcore Catholics and younger, more flexible activists. But I'm not sure.

[Uncle Sparky]

Yes, I was aware that Thomas is in an interracial marriage. His wife was a top organizer of the January 6 action. And I'm aware of his rather extreme stance... while he seems blissfully unaware that his political bedfellows might want to repeal Loving v. Virginia. Comedy gold.

[Elok]

What political bedfellows? ACB has adopted black kids so she's probably not all that big on the whole races-not-mixing thing either. Are Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch going to talk over someone from the liberal bloc? I'm not going to bother contesting the part where you assume today's GOP has the same priorities as 1960s Dixiecrats.

[ZEE]

Hey Ben

I am quoting this poast so Albert Speer will see a new notification and then come back and reply to my poast, so he will be an active member again.

[Dauphin]

Thomas posted an opinion saying, "hey, maybe we should go after the other ass-pulls while we're at it." Nobody joined him and Alito at least stressed that he was only going after Roe. Now, it's possible that Thomas was saying the quiet part loud but I don't think the pro-life movement is all that heated up about contraception; in fact, there might well be significant disagreement there between hardcore Catholics and younger, more flexible activists. But I'm not sure.

Sounds like bellwether action on his part. Or at least testing the water for the rest.

[Proteus_MST]

[PLATO]

It seems likely that the anti-abortion side is going to keep abortion front and center.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/25/roe-antiabortion-lawmakers-restrictions-state-legislatures/

On the heels of their greatest victory, antiabortion activists are eager to capitalize on their momentum by enshrining constitutional abortion bans, pushing Congress to pass a national prohibition, blocking abortion pills, and limiting people’s ability to get abortions across state lines.

JM

Group insanity. I think there are a fair number of educated people that believe both in a right to choose and that Roe was a flawed ruling. Absent a Constitutional Amendment, this is a State issue...regardless of whether or not people like it.

What we need is for Congress to grow a pair and get an amendment out there as they appear to have no expiration date on ratification. There would be many states that would ratify right away and the pro choice lobby could continue to work on the others obtaining ratification as possible. Eventually it would get passed and both end the issue and remove the court system from something that should be legislative to begin with.

[Jon Miller]

If we don't have a Supreme Court that causes chaos by ignoring precedent and we get an amendment or law (Even) that provides some consistent clarity, that is reasonable and acceptable to the majority (maybe 15 weeks?) it would be for the best.

I don't think this will happen though. I think it is more likely that the worst option (where we have an out of control Supreme Court) and end up with gay marriage outlawed, gay relationships outlawed, contraception allowed and abortion (from conception) outlawed.

JM

[My Wife Hates CIV]

[Geronimo]

If we don't have a Supreme Court that causes chaos by ignoring precedent and we get an amendment or law (Even) that provides some consistent clarity, that is reasonable and acceptable to the majority (maybe 15 weeks?) it would be for the best.

I don't think this will happen though. I think it is more likely that the worst option (where we have an out of control Supreme Court) and end up with gay marriage outlawed, gay relationships outlawed, contraception allowed and abortion (from conception) outlawed.

JM

Just because the supreme court was happy pulling new constitutional content out of it's arse whenever its members were no longer happy with the status quo and always wanted to push out further than precedent rather than pulling it back does not mean we did not have chaos. Continuously rewriting the constitution from the bench on the fly is chaos as well. Sometimes reversing precedent is the only way to reign in chaos and reestablish actual rule of law.

[Jon Miller]

Precedent is crucial to how our law system works. That doesn't mean it can never be reviewed, but most of the rule of law that the Supreme Court has is based on precedent. If it isn't for precedent, then you just have a new law when you have a new Supreme Court Justice or two. Which also means that the Executive and Legislative have less reason to treat the Court seriously (much less the people).

Because different lawyers, even top tier ones, disagree about what the law should be (if precedent is ignored).

JM