It's official - the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

[P.I. Stazzer-Newt]

[skuthorp]

Amy Coney Barret in confirmation hearing: "Cases [like Roe] are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling."


Neil Gorsuch in confirmation hearing: "Roe v. Wade...is a precedent of SCOTUS. It has been reaffirmed...A good judge will consider it as precedent."

Brett Kavanaugh in confirmation hearing: "[Roe] is an important precedent... [Roe and Casey] have been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent."

Liars and fraudsters all, appointed under false pretences…………………. but them we knew that and so did anyone voting for confirmation……
and as for the fiction of the 'United States"…………………. And what Beau says…. "This is going to be bad"

[Nicholas Carey]

There are millions of church going born again and old school christians that will vote for a R just because they are Pro Life/Pro fetus. It cuts across every single other issue. It is whats allows them to beat Ds. It is what is going to get R to be in office next year. It is what delivered Trump in 2016 and what will make Ds 2024 struggle for a win for the highest office.

Except that, having overturned Roe, the Right has lost abortion as its get out the vote tool, though they've still got guns.

I imagine that this will increase voter turnout among both women and younger voters. Women tend to vote more liberal than men do. There's an inverse relationship between age and voter turnout, and, the older the voter the more conservative their voting patterns and vice-versa. Doesn't take a huge shift in voting patterns to tip elections.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...ge-historical/

voter-turnout-by-age.jpg

[Peerie Maa]

There is an irony that the Irish republic shakes off the fell hand of the Catholic Church and changes its Constitution to facilitate abortion.
The US bows to the fell hand of the Fundi Prods and condemns its women to the risk of death at the hands of backstreet abortionists.

[John Smith]

Trump didn’t vote himself in. Trump didn’t develop the alliance of a political party with Christain theology.

He didn't? The one promise he kept was to appoint justices who would overturn Roe. He is the presidential candidate the evangelicals attached themselves to.

[John Smith]

In 2016 I didn’t want Hillary to get the nomination so I voted for Bernie in the primary, but when she became the Democratic nominee I voted for her in the general election.

If you despised Trump and/or the GOP, but you decided to stay at home instead of voting for Hillary, then today is your day to be mighty proud of the principled stand you took. You got the government you deserved.

Jeff C

Seems many didn't realize she was CLEARED on the Benghazi thing, and her emails didn't amount to much.

So they voted for a guy who used nonsecure cell phone.

[John Smith]

It seems strange to base an abortion law on the right to privacy. Perhaps this shaky foundation is why Roe Vs Wade had been overturned?

It also seems strange, to me anyway, to have a constitutional right to an abortion. I mean, it's an operation. Do you have a constitutional right to a colonoscopy as well?

Do you have the right to not allow me to get a colonoscopy?

[John Smith]

I think it is more complex than that. Nearly 2 generations of arriving latino catholics have come across to live among us. Their interests do not aline with many here including supporting abortion rights and other more modern liberal life approaches. Florida and Texas are prime latino voting states and they tend to like conservative politics that serve them and many have lived under dictates from their leaders with authoritarian rule before coming citizens. We only have to look at recent Covid vaccine acceptance rates among them and other people of color to perceive the fine differences in attitudes.

That's likely true, but the concept here is supposed to be we all get to live our own lives with our own beliefs......

[John Smith]

Just can’t understand the GOP wanting to stop abortions. They claim to be fiscally conservative. An abortion is much cheaper than the costs an unwanted child places on the taxpayer.

Agreed. I'd be happy for my taxes to pay for vasectomies.

[Nicholas Carey]

They wanted the political leverage that came with the Christian Right. I seriously doubt abortion rates amongst women in Republican families is significantly different than others.

Don't bet on that.



https://thehumanist.com/commentary/l...cy-theres-map/



https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-shee...-united-states



https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/ab...state-text.htm

United States map with state teen birth rates (births per 1,000 females ages 15-19) by quartile.

[John Smith]

Making abortions illegal won't stop people having abortions. It will only make getting abortions difficult, expensive and dangerous.

I'm still confused as why this medical procedure is not covered by HIPPA laws.

[Art Haberland]

Amy Coney Barret in confirmation hearing: "Cases [like Roe] are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling."


Neil Gorsuch in confirmation hearing: "Roe v. Wade...is a precedent of SCOTUS. It has been reaffirmed...A good judge will consider it as precedent."

Brett Kavanaugh in confirmation hearing: "[Roe] is an important precedent... [Roe and Casey] have been reaffirmed many times. Casey is precedent on precedent."

I can't believe any on the Dem side swallowed that tripe.

[George Jung]

Hey, McBoaty - did ya lose a stack of hay, ya dumb galoot?

if your opinion is that abortion should be legal and easily available from conception to the point of livebirth

Yer such a disingenuous POS.

[TomF]

Tell me about the sacred filibuster again.

Canada is it's own problems, to be sure. But I prefer them.

[johnw]

And this from Maxine:



Since she is from California, and since the decision still puts the legality of abortions into the the hands of individual states, there is no impact to the women of California. The decision did not make abortions illegal, it simply left each state to decide. Though some will undoubtedly abolish it except for extreme situations, most will have it available and many will have pretty liberal adoption practices. European abortion laws are far more restrictive than those in the US.

I think that if your opinion is that abortion should be legal and easily available from conception to the point of livebirth, then this is definitely a setback. But 78% occur before the 9th week and 91% of abortions occur in the first trimester. If it isn't available in yoiur state it probably will be in the one next door.

I suppose with more than 330 million people in this country, there must be someone who holds this opinion, but can you name any elected politicians who do?

[TomF]

This isn't my story to tell, but Herself gave her blessing.

She had 2 abortions, in her early-mid 20s. She was in no way able to be a parent - the relationships were very turbulent, and her mental health has always been fragile. Those relationships also included dynamics that led to 4 very serious, not "cry for help" suicide attempts, for instance.

I'm pretty sure that had she not had access to abortion, she'd be long dead, likely by her own hand. A single mom leaving orphaned, traumatized kids.

In contrast, Herself has transformed her own struggles into an incredible source of compassion, and a ferocious commitment to solid parenting. Her impact on her network has been astonishing. And would not have occurred. Selfishly, I'm also aware that she'd have never ended up in Vancouver where I met her, and my life would have been radically different. Less. My own self, depth of compassion, ability to question and accept and love would have been vastly diminished.

Were those abortions tragedies? Absolutely. As were the 2 miscarriages she later experienced. She grieves them all, still. On balance, was the benefit to the world increased despite the tragedy of those two abortions? Without question.

I'm damned glad she lived in Canada.

[CWSmith]

I think I've told this story before.

A relative had a girl. A year or two later her water broke when her second fetus was about 4 months along, or maybe less. I honestly don't remember. The doctor said that her uterus was crushing the child, or had crushed the child, and that it was not viable. They wanted to do a D&C to clean her up, or it was likely she would become infected and unable to have another child. She agreed and later had a boy.

Do you think the laws now being upheld would have allowed that procedure even though it had no outcome in the birth of that child? I don't.

That's the type of extremism we are facing now.

[Joe (SoCal)]

289855397_10160524103588028_1310020545931820363_n.jpg

[Osborne Russell]

Roe was a crappy piece of jurisprudence from the get-go, for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that the socio-political process was at work.
Does anyone seriously think that there is a snowball's chance in Hell of, say, the Ohio legislature voting to legalize abortion now?

Would you say the same if Brown vs. Board of Education were reversed? A ruling isn't crappy because people are stupid. We don't wait for some portion of the people to pull their head out before we claim our rights.

What are the other reasons Roe was crappy?

[RFNK]

Maybe I'm being dumb here, but you elect people to represent you, and yet the SC are unelected, lifetime positions that can change your laws?

Even in our non-written constitution, our HoLs can't call the shots.

Andy

In theory, Congress makes the law and the SC interprets it. In practice, the Congress does SFA while the SC pretends to interpret.

The US political system has been usurped by the MIC and is now broken, possibly beyond repair.

[elf]

Just can’t understand the GOP wanting to stop abortions. They claim to be fiscally conservative. An abortion is much cheaper than the costs an unwanted child places on the taxpayer.

Who says the taxpayer will be paying such costs?

[Osborne Russell]

Perhaps you practice home schooling. Guess what, your right to do so isn't mentioned in the Constitution, nor even your right to produce or keep the children in the first place. So when we announce that you never had these rights in the first place, I don't to hear your mewling. Get your tired butt out of bed and get those kids to school at 7:30 a.m. sharp, rested, fed and equipped. If not, we'll take them away from you permanently and charge you with a crime, along with anyone connected to it.

In Runyon v. McCrary the Court analyzed its prior rulings on educational choice:

In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, the Court held that the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes the right "to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children . . ."

-- wikipedia, Home schooling in the United States

[ahp]

Women who want an abortion need not worry. The Godfather has a business plan.

[Osborne Russell]

It seems strange to base an abortion law on the right to privacy. Perhaps this shaky foundation is why Roe Vs Wade had been overturned?

It's a powerful lesson in the danger of neologisms. The right to privacy, as a limitation on government power, has no content that "liberty" does not, as in "No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." In this context, "privacy" is a sub-category of "liberty".

The first mention of a right to privacy in US law concerned private, i.e. non-governmental, injury to another private individual. The issue was the inadequacy of existing laws, such as making criminal the publishing of private documents, to cover the full range of harms caused within that private context. So the range of harms had to be defined. So the right to privacy was proposed. The proposal extended the concept to "the right to an inviolate personality", and asserted the power of the judiciary as well as the legislature to interpret the right.

The US Supreme Court, in the 20th century, took off running with "the right of privacy" i.e. "the right to an inviolate personality" as being a constitutional limitation on the power of government.

So, that's how it started, and how it devoloped, until today.

In 1890, Warren and Brandeis drafted an article published in the Harvard Law Review titled "The Right To Privacy" that is often cited as the first implicit finding of a U.S. stance on the right to privacy.

-- wikipedia, Right to privacy

article at http://www.law.louisville.edu/librar...ndeis/node/225

From the article:

But if privacy is once recognized as a right entitled to legal protection, the interposition of the courts cannot depend on the particular nature of the injuries resulting.

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the protection afforded to thoughts, sentiments, and emotions, expressed through the medium of writing or of the arts, so far as it consists in preventing publication, is merely an instance of the enforcement of the more general right of the individual to be let alone. It is like the right not to be assaulted or beaten, the right not to be imprisoned, the right not to be maliciously prosecuted, the right not to be defamed. In each of these rights, as indeed in all other rights recognized by the law, there inheres the quality of being owned or possessed--and (as that is the distinguishing attribute of property) there may be some propriety in speaking of those rights as property. But, obviously, they bear little resemblance to what is ordinarily comprehended under that term. The principle which protects personal writings and all other personal productions, not against theft and physical appropriation, but against publication in any form, is in reality not the principle of private property, but that of an inviolate personality.

We must therefore conclude that the rights, so protected, whatever their exact nature, are not rights arising from contract or from special trust, but are rights as against the world; and, as above stated, the principle which has been applied to protect these rights is in reality not the principle of private property, unless that word be used in an extended and unusual sense.

IOW they are inherent in existence, without regard to property, i.e. they are natural rights. Which is so whether a Consitution makes reference to them, or not.

[LeeG]

Don't bet on that.



https://thehumanist.com/commentary/l...cy-theres-map/



https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-shee...-united-states



https://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/ab...state-text.htm

United States map with state teen birth rates (births per 1,000 females ages 15-19) by quartile.

Thenk you very much. I am not getting smarter.

[bobbys]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Warning About Roe v. Wade Came True
BY EWAN PALMER ON 5/03/22 AT 8:57 AM EDT
SHARE
U.S. RUTH BADER GINSBURG ABORTION SUPREME COURT ROE V WADE
The misgivings from late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg regarding Roe v. Wade and its susceptibility to come under attack may have ultimately been proven right given the revelations around a leaked opinion draft from the Supreme Court.



The alleged internal document, obtained by Politico, shows that the conservative-majority SCOTUS has provisionally approved to strike down the landmark 1973 ruling that ensures abortion is a constitutional right across the country, along with a subsequent 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which largely upheld the decision.

While it may seem unlikely, Ginsburg, the pioneering advocate for women's rights who died in September 2020 at age 87, was a frequent critic of Roe v. Wade, especially its framing and the speed in which it was pushed through.


In a much-quoted lecture she gave at New York University in 1992, Ginsburg noted how Roe was an example of how "Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped...may prove unstable."

BEST OF NEWSWEEK VIA EMAIL
Email address

Ruth Bader Ginsburg abortion
The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's warnings about Roe v. Wade could ultimately be proven right. Above, Ginsburg is seen as she presents the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Inaugural Woman of Leadership Award to Agnes Gund at The Library of Congress on February 14, 2020, in Washington, D.C.
SHANNON FINNEY/GETTY IMAGES
Ginsburg was in essence disagreeing with Roe's base argument that the right to abortion was based on the privacy of a woman with her doctor, and not a violation of equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution.


The majority draft opinion, which may still change ahead of the Supreme Court's final ruling around late June, was written by Justice Samuel Alito, who states that the sweeping decision to legalize abortion nationwide was "egregiously wrong from the start."

"Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division," Alito added.

NEWSWEEK SUBSCRIPTION OFFERS >
Speaking to The New York Times in September 2020, Mary Hartnett, a law professor at Georgetown University who co-wrote the Ginsburg biography My Own Words, said Ginsburg believed "it would have been better to approach it under the equal protection clause" so Roe v. Wade would be less vulnerable to attempts to have it disbarred.


"Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it?" Ginsburg told the University of Chicago Law School in May 2013. "It's about the doctor's freedom to practice...it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered."

Ginsburg also expressed concerns in the 1992 NYU lecture that the sweeping nature of Roe v. Wade should have originally focused on striking down a Texas law that "intolerably shackled a woman's autonomy" by only allowing abortion to be performed if the mother's life is in danger.

"Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force," Ginsburg said.


"Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed, reflected most recently in the Supreme Court's splintered decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey? A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why [it] might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy."

If the draft opinion is confirmed and not changed, it would mean each state would be free to decide whether to restrict or ban abortion.

As noted by The Washington Post in August, a number of anti-abortion activists have since used Ginsburg's comments to argue that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey should be overturned.


"Far from bringing peace to the controversy over abortion, Roe and Casey have made matters worse," Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch wrote in a brief attempting to pass a law that would ban virtually all abortions in the state after just 15 weeks while citing Ginsburg's own words.

Towards the end of her life, Ginsburg was criticized for not retiring from the Supreme Court so she could be replaced by a liberal judge under Barack Obama's presidency, ultimately helping to keep Roe v. Wade in place.

READ MORE

Women Are Stocking up on Abortion Pills After Roe v. Wade Leak

Democrats' Abortion Law Likely Doomed as Manchin, Sinema Dig In

Roe v. Wade Being Overturned Might Not Hurt Republicans in the Midterms

What Joe Biden Has Said About Roe v. Wade

Speaking to The Post, Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University and author of Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present, suggested that the attempts to use Ginsburg's objections to oppose the 1973 ruling would never have occurred while the judge was still alive.

"Can you imagine the dissent she would write?" Ziegler added.

During her talk to the University of Chicago Law School in May 2013, Ginsburg was asked what she believed would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned.


The judge added that several states in the U.S. would never ban the procedure, which means that poor women from anti-abortion states would be the ones who suffer the most.

"If you have the sophistication and the money, you're going to have someplace in the United States where your choice can be exercised in a safe manner," Ginsburg said. "It would mean poor women have no choice. That doesn't make sense as a policy."

Correction 05/04/2022, 6:55 a.m. ET: This article has been amended to correct Ruth Bader Ginsburg's name.

REQUEST REPRINT & LICENSING OR VIEW EDITORIAL GUIDELINES

[Too Little Time]

Maybe I'm being dumb here, but you elect people to represent you, and yet the SC are unelected, lifetime positions that can change your laws?

The Supreme Court does not change laws. The courts also do not write laws. But they do from time to time tell us what laws and the Constitution mean. That makes many unhappy.

But the courts were asked if state laws violated the Constitution. Unfortunately, the court ruled that they did not. Had the left at any time passed a law giving women the right to an abortion, the Supreme Court may have ruled the state laws void.

But the left made a choice, perhaps many times over the past lot of years, to not pass such a law.

A careful historian might note that the Constitutional Amendment making slavery illegal allowed the government to pass laws punishing those who practiced slavery. Again, the government made a choice to not do so. That caused problems for a good long time.

The left has an opportunity to to take advantage of the court ruling. I expect it will not.

[Joe (SoCal)]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Warning About Roe v. Wade Came True
BY EWAN PALMER ON 5/03/22 AT 8:57 AM EDT
SHARE
U.S. RUTH BADER GINSBURG ABORTION SUPREME COURT ROE V WADE
The misgivings from late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg regarding Roe v. Wade and its susceptibility to come under attack may have ultimately been proven right given the revelations around a leaked opinion draft from the Supreme Court.



The alleged internal document, obtained by Politico, shows that the conservative-majority SCOTUS has provisionally approved to strike down the landmark 1973 ruling that ensures abortion is a constitutional right across the country, along with a subsequent 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which largely upheld the decision.

While it may seem unlikely, Ginsburg, the pioneering advocate for women's rights who died in September 2020 at age 87, was a frequent critic of Roe v. Wade, especially its framing and the speed in which it was pushed through.


In a much-quoted lecture she gave at New York University in 1992, Ginsburg noted how Roe was an example of how "Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped...may prove unstable."

BEST OF NEWSWEEK VIA EMAIL
Email address

Ruth Bader Ginsburg abortion
The late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's warnings about Roe v. Wade could ultimately be proven right. Above, Ginsburg is seen as she presents the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Inaugural Woman of Leadership Award to Agnes Gund at The Library of Congress on February 14, 2020, in Washington, D.C.
SHANNON FINNEY/GETTY IMAGES
Ginsburg was in essence disagreeing with Roe's base argument that the right to abortion was based on the privacy of a woman with her doctor, and not a violation of equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution.


The majority draft opinion, which may still change ahead of the Supreme Court's final ruling around late June, was written by Justice Samuel Alito, who states that the sweeping decision to legalize abortion nationwide was "egregiously wrong from the start."

"Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division," Alito added.

NEWSWEEK SUBSCRIPTION OFFERS >
Speaking to The New York Times in September 2020, Mary Hartnett, a law professor at Georgetown University who co-wrote the Ginsburg biography My Own Words, said Ginsburg believed "it would have been better to approach it under the equal protection clause" so Roe v. Wade would be less vulnerable to attempts to have it disbarred.


"Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it?" Ginsburg told the University of Chicago Law School in May 2013. "It's about the doctor's freedom to practice...it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered."

Ginsburg also expressed concerns in the 1992 NYU lecture that the sweeping nature of Roe v. Wade should have originally focused on striking down a Texas law that "intolerably shackled a woman's autonomy" by only allowing abortion to be performed if the mother's life is in danger.

"Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force," Ginsburg said.


"Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed, reflected most recently in the Supreme Court's splintered decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey? A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why [it] might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy."

If the draft opinion is confirmed and not changed, it would mean each state would be free to decide whether to restrict or ban abortion.

As noted by The Washington Post in August, a number of anti-abortion activists have since used Ginsburg's comments to argue that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey should be overturned.


"Far from bringing peace to the controversy over abortion, Roe and Casey have made matters worse," Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch wrote in a brief attempting to pass a law that would ban virtually all abortions in the state after just 15 weeks while citing Ginsburg's own words.

Towards the end of her life, Ginsburg was criticized for not retiring from the Supreme Court so she could be replaced by a liberal judge under Barack Obama's presidency, ultimately helping to keep Roe v. Wade in place.

READ MORE

Women Are Stocking up on Abortion Pills After Roe v. Wade Leak

Democrats' Abortion Law Likely Doomed as Manchin, Sinema Dig In

Roe v. Wade Being Overturned Might Not Hurt Republicans in the Midterms

What Joe Biden Has Said About Roe v. Wade

Speaking to The Post, Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University and author of Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present, suggested that the attempts to use Ginsburg's objections to oppose the 1973 ruling would never have occurred while the judge was still alive.

"Can you imagine the dissent she would write?" Ziegler added.

During her talk to the University of Chicago Law School in May 2013, Ginsburg was asked what she believed would happen if Roe v. Wade was overturned.


The judge added that several states in the U.S. would never ban the procedure, which means that poor women from anti-abortion states would be the ones who suffer the most.

"If you have the sophistication and the money, you're going to have someplace in the United States where your choice can be exercised in a safe manner," Ginsburg said. "It would mean poor women have no choice. That doesn't make sense as a policy."

Correction 05/04/2022, 6:55 a.m. ET: This article has been amended to correct Ruth Bader Ginsburg's name.

REQUEST REPRINT & LICENSING OR VIEW EDITORIAL GUIDELINES

Maybe you can C&P your answer to this without attributing the source

1 Did Mr Biden legitimately win the 2020 presidential election? If not, why not?
2. What do you think of the attempt to interfere by force with the electoral vote count on January 6, 2021? If you approve, explain.

[Canoeyawl]

I grew up in Leave it to Beaver America. Never thought I’d be living in Afghanistan in my later years.

In Leave it to Beaver America, abortion was illegal, same sex anything except deer hunting was illegal, interracial marriage was illegal, vagrancy was illegal, Jim Crow was heavily enforced and adinfiniteaum... When I was in school (Virginia) there were black kids that I knew killed in race riots. And those that survived that were drafted and sent to Vietnam.

Leave to Beaver America was only good for blind white Americans with pretty good jobs.
I don't want to go back to that.
This is a set back, but it is not insurmountable. The states have the power now. I'm hoping it will f'n wake up the voters on the left, and keep them awake for a while.
Everyone was so certain that Hillary was going to win, it was a loss due to apathy/complacency....

[Nicholas Carey]

Would you say the same if Brown vs. Board of Education were reversed? A ruling isn't crappy because people are stupid. We don't wait for some portion of the people to pull their head out before we claim our rights.

What are the other reasons Roe was crappy?

John Hart Ely's 1973 Yale Law Review paper, "The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade" is a good place to start.

https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstre...=2&isAllowed=y

Roe v. Wade seems like a durable decision.

It is, nevertheless, a very bad decision. Not because it will perceptibly weaken the Court--it won't; and not because it conflicts with either my idea of progress, or what the evidence suggests is society's--it doesn't. It is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.

Here's the letter he wrote to the authors of the opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

I'm not much of a fan letter writer, but it seemed to me an exception was in order here, since I know you'll receive a lot of grief from true believers on both sides of this one.

Your joint opinion is excellent--I guess law professors are allowed to say that occasionally--not only reaching what seem to me entirely sensible results, but defending the refusal to overrule Roe v. Wade splendidly.

As you're aware, I thought (and think) Roe was constitutionally indefensible, but overruling it now would have been a terrible mistake as well. Our society has indeed built up expectations on the basis of it, particularly as regards the aspirations of women. And falling into a pattern whereby presidents appoint justices with the essential promise that they will overrule particular cases, and then having them dutifully proceed to do so, would weaken the Court's authority immeasurably.

The nation is in your debt.

Lawrence Tribe, Alan Dershowitz, both pro choice, have made similar criticisms of Roe. And there are others. Google is your friend.

Edited to note: Ruth Bader Ginsberg was no fan of Roe, either. She discusses it in a 1992 lecture at NYU Law School, beginning on page 1198 (actually page 14 in the PDF) below:

https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/defaul...PRO_059254.pdf

and a somewhat more recent bit from Justice Ginsberg: https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/ju...w-school-visit

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit

Meredith Heagney
May 15, 2013

Casual observers of the Supreme Court who came to the Law School to hear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak about Roe v. Wade likely expected a simple message from the longtime defender of reproductive and women’s rights: Roe was a good decision.

Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.

Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.”

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”
.
.
.

In her back-and-forth with Stone, Ginsburg offered many fascinating observations. She talked about what life was like for women in the “not so good old days,” when judges believed that laws restricting women from certain work, such as bartending or lawyering, were there to protect the fairer sex. Her goal as a litigator was to show judges that these rules marginalized women, rather than protect them from harm. She said that only “well-heeled” girls and women who found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy had the option to get an abortion, by traveling abroad, while poorer women had no such option.

“For most young women, the only way to deal with it was to marry him,” Ginsburg said.

Ginsburg talked about the case she wished would’ve been the first reproductive freedom case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Struck v. Secretary of Defense. In that case, Ginsburg represented Capt. Susan Struck, who was serving in the Air Force in Vietnam when she became pregnant. The Air Force gave her two options: terminate or leave the Air Force. Struck wanted to keep the baby and her job, and Ginsburg took her case. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, but the Air Force relented and allowed Struck to keep her job, rendering the issue moot.

“I wish that would’ve been the first case. I think the Court would’ve better understood that this is about women’s choice,” Ginsburg said.

In response to a student question about what would happen if Roe were overturned now, Ginsburg said the effect would largely be restricted to poor women in anti-choice states. Many states would never outlaw abortion, and wealthier women will always be able to travel to those states, she pointed out.

“If you have the sophistication and the money, you’re going to have someplace in the United States where your choice can be exercised in a safe manner,” she said. “It would mean poor women have no choice. That doesn’t make sense as a policy.”

intersting that the University of Chicago has a transcript of this talk, with an audio recording at https://www.law.uchicago.edu/recordi...y-stone-roe-40

and video on YouTube at

https://youtu.be/xw3CMRyvkq4

[bobbys]

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Democrats have temporarily pushed pause on the January 6th hearings in order to lead an insurrection against the federal government.

"On January 6th, a branch of our federal government was almost overthrown because politicians used dangerous rhetoric that caused—wait, hold on everyone, I just got the update. Roe's been overturned!" said Representative Adam Schiff. "Okay, well if all the Republicans could please sit tight, there will be a brief recess while our Democratic caucus takes to the streets demanding we overthrow a branch of the federal government."

After closing down their presentation entitled "How Trump Undermined Institutional Authority", Democrats raced to join the crowd surrounding the Supreme Court building. "Rigged! Rigged decision!" shouted Senator Elizabeth Warren. "Judges must no longer be allowed to hold power! We will never abide by an illegitimate decision by an illegitimate court. Fight, fight!" she screamed as beleaguered police arrived in riot gear.

Despite the fact liberal states will still have the most permissive abortion laws in the world outside North Korea, Democrats helpfully painted the Supreme Court's decision as a matter of life and death. "They are literally going to enslave every woman in America and force them to have 17 babies," said Representative Ilhan Omar to a group of mentally unstable lunatics. "Which is why the Supreme Court cannot stand! To the streets!" she shouted, then returned to the House for a speech on why Trump's words were directly responsible for violence.

At publishing time, the January 6 committee had resumed its hearings to the stark sound of no one caring.

Babylon Bee subscriber Ultra Torgo contributed to this report.

[bobbys]

In Leave it to Beaver America, abortion was illegal, same sex anything except deer hunting was illegal, interracial marriage was illegal, vagrancy was illegal, Jim Crow was heavily enforced and adinfiniteaum... When I was in school (Virginia) there were black kids that I knew killed in race riots. And those that survived that were drafted and sent to Vietnam.

Leave to Beaver America was only good for blind white Americans with pretty good jobs.
I don't want to go back to that.
This is a set back, but it is not insurmountable. The states have the power now. I'm hoping it will f'n wake up the voters on the left, and keep them awake for a while.
Everyone was so certain that Hillary was going to win, it was a loss due to apathy/complacency....

I remember when the democrats wanted to give me a automatic rifle to go kill people .. on fact i could not even order a beer at that age but they wanted to give me a gun. My draft board was in Newark, that's where the democrats were emptying the ghettos to go to Vietnam.

[bobbys]

It seems strange to base an abortion law on the right to privacy. Perhaps this shaky foundation is why Roe Vs Wade had been overturned?

It also seems strange, to me anyway, to have a constitutional right to an abortion. I mean, it's an operation. Do you have a constitutional right to a colonoscopy as well?

Taking a human life is not comparable to a colonoscopy, i doubt the justices argued this.

[bobbys]

At least these unwanted kids will be able to carry the guns they need to survive.

Not logical.

[bobbys]

Jesus. WTF is happening to this country....I'm sick

Settled law my ass. Those lying scum.

And a special thanks to Senator Susan Collins. I hope your daughters and grand daughters will be proud of you.

She has been the left's brave hero here lots of times.