I have been too busy to post today but I didnt’t want to let the day go by without remarking on what is surely one of the biggest stories of the day if not the biggest—the reversal of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court,
As I’ve said before I think that abortion is wrong, that Roe v. Wade is bad law, and that present policy is bad policy but nonetheless I regret SCOTUS’s decision. I think they should have upheld it on grounds of stare decisis And freedom of religion but now the SCOTUS has spoken. I just hope there isn’t too much civil disorder.
My best guess is that some states will ban abortion outright, some will restrict abortion more than it is now. Some states like Illinois will try to set themselves up as abortion destinations.
As I’ve also said before the policy position that some are staking out (abortion on demand all the way to term with very few restrictions) is extreme—when nearly every G7 country has more restrictive laws than that abortion on demand to term is extreme.
Now I’ll be scouring the Internet for commentary. My guess is that most of the commentary will be quite agonistic.
One last thought. I wonder how many people will be asking themselves why they didn’t push for Roe v. Wade to be codified into law? Not many I suspect. I don’t think the Supreme Court should be creating law when the law is contrary to the policy a majority of its members prefer.
Update
If Amy Howe’s reporting at SCOTUSBlog is correct, I concur with Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion. Mississippi’s law should have been upheld, Roe and Casey should not have been reversed, and the decision is likely to harm the judiciary.
A majority did prefer that abortion be legal but this is the US where it takes more than a majority to pass laws. This is a question I have seen asked probably thousands of times. There may have been some windows, not recently, when there were enough laws to pass it into law but I dont think anyone thought it was at risk of being overturned back then.
Steve
“…Mississippi’s law should have been upheld, Roe and Casey should not have been reversed, and the decision is likely to harm the judiciary.”
That would have been an unprincipled stand, again attempting to define viability rather than recognize the law. Returning the issue to the states was the issue, and where things would have wound up anyway.
That said, I personally would like to see a, say, 15 week limit. But that’s not my call, except in the state of South Carolina.
Expect to see lots of grandstanding, vandalism, Mass disruptions, and the usual demonstration/riot. Lets see how it affects turn out this fall
PS – Jon Turley pointed out that Roberts motivation in limiting the ruling was to avoid embroiling the Court in a messy debate.
Again, thats an unprincipled position dealing more in PR or politics than the law. Thats what has really has been damaging the judiciary.
“My guess is that most of the commentary will be quite agonistic.”
I think you will find very little discussion of the law, and much poorly thought out political posturing and personal spleen venting.
No one foresaw in 1973 how that decision would roil the body politic and the judiciary for 50 years; so its quite possible few are foreseeing the effects of this decision over the next 50 years.
For all those who worked and desired for this moment; the journey until now may have been the easy part.
So, will we have a J24 committee arising from the insurrection incidences politicians like Maxine Waters and OAC are inciting to happen?
Why would you favor an arbitrary 15 week limit rather than letting the woman decide based upon input from family, medical team, clergy? Real life is complicated and these blunt rules with exceptions dont seem like a good idea to me. Just an example…
May years ago we had a pregnant respiratory therapist who had a fetus who had complete renal agenesis. Back then 50% died before birth and the rest died within a couple of hours of birth. Being a respiratory therapist who had asthma herself she asked if this would be like a bad asthma/COPD attack, the kid couldn’t breathe, until it died. If you have ever watched an end stage COPD pt die it is a bad way to go. If you have seen the face of a kid in status asthmatics it is awful.
We couldn’t really tell her we knew that answer but in reality it didnt seem like that bad of an analogy. She said she didnt want to put her kid through that so opted to terminate right away. She was well past 15 weeks. What would have been the point of forcing her to carry to term, especially knowing it was easier and safer for her to terminate early?
So this is not that uncommon of an issue so we have since had good, Christian moms deliver these kids. They like to hold the baby while they (try to ) gasp to death trying to expand those lungs that are never going to expand. We dont torture animals to death. We have mostly stopped torturing old people to death. We are OK doing it to babies. I dont get it, but if some Christian mom wants to do it good for her, but why does she get to force other moms to do the same?
“So, will we have a J24 committee arising from the insurrection incidences politicians like Maxine Waters and OAC are inciting to happen?”
If the attack police and break into the congress building I hope so.
Steve
But burning buildings and businesses, killing police and civilians is somehow more law abiding, not warranting any long term punishment and incarceration? Antifa and others can get away such violence?
I have to think that next flashpoint is Bakke/affirmative action. Surely the plain language of the 14th Amendment prohibits ever kind of racial/sex preferment.
Don’t conflate issues, steve. I would listen, actually, probably defer, to medical evaluations. But even that actually still leaves the real issue unresolved, which is: its a classic my rights vs your rights issue. Some basis must exist for the timing of acknowledgement of rights to an unborn. Conception? 15 weeks? 16 weeks? Birth. The first Tuesday after birth? I’m sure there are plenty of people to take all those positions. I’ve heard them.
Religiously oriented people will say its conception. I disagree, but understand their position. “A women’s right to choose” is another position I understand, but not when it encroaches upon an unborn’s (or newly born) rights, certainly the case in partial birth abortion.
Most of the western countries have arrived at something like 15 weeks. Plenty of time for consideration by a woman. Not an egregious violation of a budding human life. Its not pure, like physics. But it would resolve so many practical problems. I’m sure you know the old saw: a good negotiation is when all parties walk away pissed off, but sign.
Look at the bright side. After the left being so completely mystified for months now about what a woman is………….they now are crystal clear, and know her rights……..
I can live with 15 or 16 weeks but with the following caveats. First, the primary reason abortions go past 16 weeks is delays caused by requirements in red states. Take those away if your goal is to not have late abortions. Second, you need an avenue for exceptions. The fact is that when the child is of viable age you arent seeing partial birth abortions in most places. Abortions beyond viability are largely limited to fetuses with non-survivable defects. Not really being the point of forcing someone to carry to term for a child that will die in minutes.
Antifa? Did you guys finally find some?
Steve
“Antifa? Did you guys finally find some?”
You don’t really have to try hard. But you cant spend your life on Bulwark, OTB, MSNBC, NPR, CBS……..
https://twitter.com/crabcrawler1/status/1540496484420001792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1540497035152990208%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fcitizenfreepress.com%2Fbreaking%2Fantifa-arrives-at-supreme-court%2F
Dressing in black means you are antifa? LOL. Back to my point, have you actually caught any? There are millions of them and they cause every riot. Heck, all of those people at 1/6 were really antifa, just not wearing black right? Anyway, keep trying. I am sure you will catch some one day. Maybe you will even have an investigation that ends up finding something too. Maybe.
Steve
Yeah, you are right. They are all from NYC, where black is the dress code.
Please, steve. That’s embarrassing. Its a free country. Deny if you like. You only fool yourself.
What are you peddling next, lectures about “mostly peaceful” looting and fire bombing?
With a little time passed since the decision came down, a couple observations.
The conflation of morals, off hand opinion, and law has been disheartening. I think on the law the ruling is spot on. (stare decisis notwithstanding – I find that argument very weak) My morals and opinion go to some sort of viability standard, like 12-16 weeks. Medical or other considerations accepted. The general discourse has been horrid.
The reactions – threats really – of some Democrat politicians are to be expected, but a blight on our elected leaders. We have precious few statesmen.
What happened was the natural result of overreach by leftist activists. Contra-steve, the goal posts kept moving to later and later abortion acceptance. The same can now be seen in gay or trans rights. Zealots have zeal. Their initial stated goals are false and deceptive. The right can make the same mistake. If they succumb to the absolutists they will lose now that the issue has been turned back to the electorate. Sometimes you need to say “this is the best deal we are going to get, take it.” Transactional, I know. But this isn’t nuclear reactor physics……
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/democrats-shut-down-110-freeway-in-los-angeles/
Last night the 101 freeway was shut down in S CA. The AZ Capitol building was breeched and a legislative session interrupted. Will any of these abortion terrorists be hunted down, put into solitary confinement indefinitely, with no due process in sight? Naw….they’re democrats, and the people in black (described by most familiar with this disruptive activist group as Antifa) are treated as a myth by people who never want to pin anything on the ruthlessness of their own party.
I expect just as many to face charges as happened when protestors, armed ones too, invaded the capital in Idaho and Michigan and i am sure I am forgetting some. If you followed news events you would know that protestors invading a state capital while not exactly and every day event is not that uncommon. So I expect that in Arizona, a state controlled by Republicans, that they will decide if any actions rise to the point of needing prosecution and wont really hesitate if they decide it is merited. Heck, now that Sheriff Joe has a pardon that could put him to work.
https://www.propublica.org/article/sense-of-entitlement-rioters-faced-no-consequences-invading-state-capitols-no-wonder-they-turned-to-the-u-s-capitol-next
Drew- How many states allow unlimited abortion? I looked it up. The large majority have viability limits. Which again gets back to the type of case I mentioned. A number of the severe fetal defects that are fatal wont be found until the fetus is viable. Again with renal agenesis you dont see that until later in pregnancy. (As of a few years ago we did develop some treatments that can help some of these kids, but not all of them. Dont want to do a medical treatise here but suffice to say it is pretty intensive care that is expensive, time consuming and we dont really know long term outcomes.) As long as you allow an exemption for the mother who says I dont want to have to carry to term only to have the baby die in a couple of hours and have what can be perceived as a tortured way to die, I am OK with setting limits at 15-16 weeks. Along with taking away all of the delays that are actually the primary reason for going past that deadline.
Back to the anti-abortions states. At least 11, last count, have laws that done allow for exemptions for some combination of mothers life, mothers health, rape or incest, especially the last 3.
Steve
I’m not sure what we are debating, steve. A sensical stand is 15-16 weeks, with medical caveats. It will not please strident viewpoints on either end. In any event, that’s not what this decision was really about. It was about the law, and whether courts should make law or legislatures.
It seems to me you are getting dangerously close in your argument to “well, it only happens a little bit.” People aren’t just a little dead. Protests aren’t mostly peaceful when you have rioting, looting and arson in the background on your TV. And most importantly, surely you are not going to argue that the inexorable drift was not to later and later abortions.