The end of Roe. (no more question mark)

today was more depressing than usual. I couldn't bear to listen to the oral arguments.


This will be the first big decision for a court with questionable legitimacy.  Leaving aside, for the moment, the damage it will do to women, I shudder to think about what it will do to our nation's already precarious sanity.


Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar stood up to some tough questioning. I thought Justice Roberts sounded argumentative compared to the other conservative Justices but I missed a bit of the discussion. I listened on C SPAN so I'm sure they will rerun it and I'll listen again. The big discussion seems to be on the concept of viability and medical advancements which I expected. Justice Amy Comey Barrett added an arguement for adoption as an option which seemed like something she wanted to get on the record more than a strong legal argument.

My feeling was still that the 15 week limit will stand

https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-abortion-case-12-01-21/h_585039df0b2bd5bd88d6e0c4c4bbd26b.


I don’t know what universe I’m living in, any more; it feels like a bad old-style novel: 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/dec/03/poland-plans-to-set-up-register-of-pregnancies-to-report-miscarriages
I mean, even places that fairly recently were fighting for democratic freedoms are denying them to half their population…


joanne said:

I don’t know what universe I’m living in, any more; it feels like a bad old-style novel: 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/dec/03/poland-plans-to-set-up-register-of-pregnancies-to-report-miscarriages
I mean, even places that fairly recently were fighting for democratic freedoms are denying them to half their population…

Doctor's don't even have to report miscarriages. A pregnancy is reported and a year later their government may ask "so, where is your baby?". No proof of birth? Its off to jail you go. 

Spontaneous abortion? Prove it wasn't on purpose. Can't? Off to jail you go.


I keep coming back to what a disaster the TX law -- and the supreme courts response to it -- is. Bad for Roe, obviously, but the ramifications go beyond that. Given that they pretty clearly are gunning for overturning Roe, it would have been better for them to simply straightforwardly do so here, rather than legitimizing the outsourcing of constitutional nullification to private bounty hunters.

I see that California is now planning to apply the same concept to assault weapons. What will the court do? Allow California's proposed law to stand, and so essentially ending the concept of judicial review and undermining the supremacy clause? Strike down California's law but leave their judgment of the TX law intact, thereby completely destroying the court's legitimacy (and, hence, opening the door for states and presidents to simply ignore the court, unraveling judicial review and the supremacy clause)?

Do the 5 radical justices know they are blowing up the third branch of government? Is that their goal?


Nah, they gut Roe through the Mississippi case, strike down the TX law to the extent it conflicts with the ruling in the MS case but permits the scheme to persist, and then strikes down the CA law as being inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment.


Steve said:

Nah, they gut Roe through the Mississippi case, strike down the TX law to the extent it conflicts with the ruling in the MS case but permits the scheme to persist, and then strikes down the CA law as being inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment.

Agree they will limit Roe through the Mississippi case, find it reasonable they would use the second Amendment to stop the California law but I'm completely puzzled by the Texas law being allowed to stand. 


Morganna said:

Steve said:

Nah, they gut Roe through the Mississippi case, strike down the TX law to the extent it conflicts with the ruling in the MS case but permits the scheme to persist, and then strikes down the CA law as being inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment.

Agree they will limit Roe through the Mississippi case, find it reasonable they would use the second Amendment to stop the California law but I'm completely puzzled by the Texas law being allowed to stand. 

There's nothing to be puzzled about. SCOTUS is currently as evil as it's been since Dred Scott. The end of Roe is just the beginning of what they will be doing in the coming years.


Steve said:

Nah, they gut Roe through the Mississippi case, strike down the TX law to the extent it conflicts with the ruling in the MS case but permits the scheme to persist, and then strikes down the CA law as being inconsistent with the 2nd Amendment.

That seems the most likely, and does stop short of just destroying the judiciary, but it's still a pretty severe wound to its legitimacy. If they hadn't been in such a rush to end abortion rights in Texas, they could have allowed an injunction while the Mississippi case was argued. They seem to be going about dismantling Roe in the manner most damaging to the judiciary possible.


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/25/idaho-abortion-ban-roe-v-wade
I read about the new law in Idaho, whereby anyone in the woman’s family can privately sue her for the loss of her baby if she chooses to terminate a pregnancy (rape/incest aside). The article discusses the ways this differs from the Texas law, as well as various impacts on women’s health and on society in the coming (decades) (I can’t remember how long, sorry).

As far as I can tell, in both States, it still means that if I’m walking down the street and a bus or semi-trailer runs over pregnant-me and my 20 weeks’/still-unborn baby’s skull is crushed so the dead foetus needs to be removed, I’m going to be prosecuted and/or jailed. Yes?

Similarly, if I’m doing ordinary household chores, get really dizzy, fall and injure myself and/or the unborn foetus causing a natural miscarriage, I’ll still be prosecuted/jailed, and possibly sued depending where I live. 
What if I catch a really bad virus, or get salmonella or encephalitis or something circulating in the community, that kills the foetus/causes miscarriage? No matter how careful I’ve been?? At least a third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage - are these poor women going to have to live with the threat of prosecution and taunts of ‘murderer’??  shock

I can’t stand these stupidly pious «ethical » stances that make us all out to be callous murderers no matter what the circumstances are or appear to be to the judgemental busybodies so eager to control female bodies. 


joanne said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/25/idaho-abortion-ban-roe-v-wade
I read about the new law in Idaho, whereby anyone in the woman’s family can privately sue her for the loss of her baby if she chooses to terminate a pregnancy (rape/incest aside). The article discusses the ways this differs from the Texas law, as well as various impacts on women’s health and on society in the coming (decades) (I can’t remember how long, sorry).

As far as I can tell, in both States, it still means that if I’m walking down the street and a bus or semi-trailer runs over pregnant-me and my 20 weeks’/still-unborn baby’s skull is crushed so the dead foetus needs to be removed, I’m going to be prosecuted and/or jailed. Yes?

Similarly, if I’m doing ordinary household chores, get really dizzy, fall and injure myself and/or the unborn foetus causing a natural miscarriage, I’ll still be prosecuted/jailed, and possibly sued depending where I live. 
What if I catch a really bad virus, or get salmonella or encephalitis or something circulating in the community, that kills the foetus/causes miscarriage? No matter how careful I’ve been?? At least a third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage - are these poor women going to have to live with the threat of prosecution and taunts of ‘murderer’?? 
shock

I can’t stand these stupidly pious «ethical » stances that make us all out to be callous murderers no matter what the circumstances are or appear to be to the judgemental busybodies so eager to control female bodies. 

Maybe after that, burning at the stake would be introduced. 


Jaytee said:

joanne said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/25/idaho-abortion-ban-roe-v-wade
I read about the new law in Idaho, whereby anyone in the woman’s family can privately sue her for the loss of her baby if she chooses to terminate a pregnancy (rape/incest aside). The article discusses the ways this differs from the Texas law, as well as various impacts on women’s health and on society in the coming (decades) (I can’t remember how long, sorry).

As far as I can tell, in both States, it still means that if I’m walking down the street and a bus or semi-trailer runs over pregnant-me and my 20 weeks’/still-unborn baby’s skull is crushed so the dead foetus needs to be removed, I’m going to be prosecuted and/or jailed. Yes?

Similarly, if I’m doing ordinary household chores, get really dizzy, fall and injure myself and/or the unborn foetus causing a natural miscarriage, I’ll still be prosecuted/jailed, and possibly sued depending where I live. 
What if I catch a really bad virus, or get salmonella or encephalitis or something circulating in the community, that kills the foetus/causes miscarriage? No matter how careful I’ve been?? At least a third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage - are these poor women going to have to live with the threat of prosecution and taunts of ‘murderer’?? 
shock

I can’t stand these stupidly pious «ethical » stances that make us all out to be callous murderers no matter what the circumstances are or appear to be to the judgemental busybodies so eager to control female bodies. 

Maybe after that, burning at the stake would be introduced. 

I think stoning is the better way to go.  That way you can make it a community event and build civic spirit.


Not sure if you could find enough stones…Oh wait, perhaps the resources mining sector could supply them??

tjohn said:

I think stoning is the better way to go.  That way you can make it a community event and build civic spirit.


joanne said:

Not sure if you could find enough stones…Oh wait, perhaps the resources mining sector could supply them??

tjohn said:

I think stoning is the better way to go.  That way you can make it a community event and build civic spirit.

People claiming to be inspired by their gods never run short of stones.


Yeah, sadly that’s true. 

And it’s not like I don’t agree that ‘Life is sacred’. But at the same time, we all make some kind of exceptions to this ‘universal truth’. Some of us, with what we include in our diets (various animals, fish etc), or the way we garden (no slugs allowed!), what we allow in our homes (personally, no ants, flies or cockroaches in mine although I’d rather relocate than kill them), even the way we dress (‘vegan leather’ jackets, anyone?)…what are boxing gloves made of, these days? And footballs? Catchers’ mitts? So why not be realistic and, in fact educated about real women’s lives when shaping modern social policies??  question


I’ve just read. Totally aghast. So: (if I were living there) now, I’d supposedly have to bring the husband to every gynae visit just to verify there’s nothing underhand going on??? And anytime there’s hormonal treatment I’d need his approval too?? I mean, ‘reproductive health’ is a lot more complicated than it was back in the 1960s. 
tongue laugh


Thanks Berniebots.

"There is no difference between Trump and Hillary"


and the fun is just beginning. wheeeeeee!


Bad news for Americans in general, but good news if you're a Democrat running in the mid-terms.  


I watched Chris Hayes when he was given the breaking news and getting ready to hand it off to Rachel Maddow.

I'm surprised that so many people are surprised.

A giant cynical, "I told you so" appeared over my head in a cartoon thought bubble. I thought of all of the women that I argued with when Trump announced his candidacy and his promise to overthrow Roe. The countless times I was told, "I don't get involved in politics", or "I'm voting for Trump" and "Roe will never be overturned." 

Now, posts everywhere on social media that this will rally the Democrats, particularly women. Too little too late.

I have more respect for people who flatly announced that they believed Roe should be overturned, than all of those who said they supported a woman's right to choose but just couldn't vote for Hillary.


Can we safely now say that these justices lied to the senate to get confirmation when they agreed that Roe vs Wade was settled law? 
Why does this world seem like 1938 all over again? 


dave said:

Bad news for Americans in general, but good news if you're a Democrat running in the mid-terms.  

For the most part, voters who aren't automatically pulling the lever for the GOP don't pay attention to the issue. That's how this situation came about.


Wonder what Susan Collins thinks about this.  Oh, wait, she doesn't think at all.


Governors' responses:

Governors swiftly react to reports of leaked draft opinion of Roe v. Wade (NPR)

NJ:

"I want to assure every New Jerseyan that today's news about the Supreme Court does not change access to abortion in our state," said New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat. "Access to reproductive health care remains available to anyone who needs it in New Jersey."

dave said:

Perhaps the media should be covering this more.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/plan-c-secret-option-mail-order-abortion/620324/

A little nip and tuck to the "Prohibited and Restricted Items" in the laws governing the United States Postal Service will take care of this.  The "Postal Police" will be knocking on your door.

STANDARD PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ITEMS (usps.com)


nohero said:

A little nip and tuck to the "Prohibited and Restricted Items" in the laws governing the United States Postal Service will take care of this.  The "Postal Police" will be knocking on your door.

STANDARD PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ITEMS (usps.com)

DeJoy is still in charge, after all.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Advertise here!

Rentals

Sponsored Business

Find Business