Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

Open Club  ·  46 members  ·  Free

OOB v2.0

Roe -V- Wade......Back at it again (finally?)


swordfish

Recommended Posts

On 5/14/2022 at 10:48 AM, Bobref said:

An interesting slant on the debate, The author contends that, to date, the abortion debate has largely ignored important economic issues.

https://michaelleppert.com/the-economics-of-roe-arent-being-discussed-enough/

THE ECONOMICS OF ROE AREN’T BEING DISCUSSED ENOUGH

by Michael Leppert | May 13, 2022 | Politics/Government, Pop/Life

I regularly tell my students these days, just like I used to regularly tell my clients, if you have an idea for a policy change in America, be prepared to successfully make your case purely on economic terms. In other words, trying to convince policy makers the change that is being proposed is simply the right thing to do usually won’t get the effort very far. Proponents for change need to show them the money.

When government and politics in America get disconnected from this unwritten virtue, bad decisions are often made. We love to talk about our loyalty to freedom, the flag and the Constitution, but when it comes to change, real change, the dollar is king. This is how it should be. It is this component of public policy debates that make most issues, and virtually every newsworthy one, relevant to all of us.

The abortion debate should be no different. There is plenty of data. It is easy to understand. But the loudness of the passions have prevented a rational economic dialogue from having the prominence it deserves. Oh, and one other big thing is keeping this discussion on the back burner: the court doesn’t care.

Sheelah Kohatkar succinctly wrote about it on Wednesday in the New Yorker. “Whether and under what circumstances to become a mother is the single most economically important decision most women will make in their lifetimes,” says Caitlin Myers, an economist at Middlebury College, widely recognized as a leading scholar on this issue. But during oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court last December in the Mississippi case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the discussion of the economic impact was cut off by Chief Justice John Roberts so he could discuss the fifteen-week deadline for an abortion, in which he seems so interested.

The State of Mississippi makes the argument that the Roe v. Wade decision and the subsequent decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood are no longer relevant. It argues that access to contraception, availability of child care, and the existence of family leave laws are the things that make the economics of the issue different today than they were fifty years ago. Myers and 153 other economists filed a brief in the case obliterating that shallow perspective.

On contraception, in a 2019 report, the Guttmacher Institute reports that 45% of all pregnancies in America are unintended. This is in an era of great available and advanced contraception to which Mississippi refers. Most of those pregnancies were “wanted later,” while only 18% were unwanted. 42% of those pregnancies end in abortion. I’m sorry Justice Roberts and Mississippi, but that is “relevant.”

The moral debate on the issue leaves few Americans without an opinion on the matter. But what parent is oblivious to the cost of their children? When 49% of abortions today are being performed on women at or below the poverty level, and an additional 26% being just above that line, the cost of those children to all of us is obvious and beyond debate. But the economic impact of and outlook on those women is the thing rarely discussed.

Secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, explained it in simple terms this week. Emily Peck reports for Axios that Yellen said eliminating a woman’s right to seek an abortion would have “very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades.”

The proponents of these extreme bans in many of the states, including Indiana, lose the economic argument. They have had much of their success because the intensity of the moral debate has provided their vacuous economic one an inordinate amount of cover. The court is a great venue for this void–the court often doesn’t do economics. As much as we think politicians generally, and legislative bodies specifically, ignore the broad implications of their policies, they are designed to account for these things. The public often fails to hold them to account, but that’s just one of many failings for which we have no one else to blame.

What the leaked opinion that was written by Justice Samuel Alito was predictably light on was the impact of his proposed decision. I’m betting that if pressed about it, the five justices who apparently support the overturning of Roe and Casey would give an answer that could easily be interpreted as “it’s not our responsibility.”

It is a near-perfect storm of devastating consequences being made on behalf of the moral and political whims of the minority of Americans. It appears those who think it doesn’t matter to them are going to have to suffer until it does.

SCOTUS is saying either the federal lawmakers need to come up with a livable national law or it goes back to the states controls.  Abortion is not a constitutional right.  Since when is SCOTUS concerned about economics?

Edited by swordfish
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Unsurprisingly, the constitution does not mention abortion. Do you think that ends the debate?

Here’s one:

An unvaccinated woman becomes pregnant. Her doctor tells her that her unvaccinated status presents a threat to the viability of the fetus. If she contracts the virus while pregnant there is a significantly enhanced risk of stillbirth. She refuses to be vaccinated. Her doctor contacts Child Protective Services, who ultimately files a lawsuit against the woman to require her to be vaccinated in order to protect the fetus. How does Judge Swordfish rule?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Here’s one:

An unvaccinated woman becomes pregnant. Her doctor tells her that her unvaccinated status presents a threat to the viability of the fetus. If she contracts the virus while pregnant there is a significantly enhanced risk of stillbirth. She refuses to be vaccinated. Her doctor contacts Child Protective Services, who ultimately files a lawsuit against the woman to require her to be vaccinated in order to protect the fetus. How does Judge Swordfish rule?

The hypothetical "Judge" SF does not care to wallow into that hypothetical debate on a potential side affect of any new hypothetical abortion laws.  Wondering what it has to do with the constitutionality of abortion.  (The topic of this thread).

Which again - SF's position is that it needs to be left to the states unless Congress can actually pass a law that specifically addresses abortion.  SCOTUS got it wrong in Roe V. Wade and both sides know how shakey the ruling is which is why the Pro-Choice side has been so scared of this happening.  (IMHO)

Senator Schumer put a bill before the Senate last week that had absolutely zero chance of passing (even though there was enough support for a better bi-partisan bill to pass) just to keep the debate alive.  SF would think that with the left in charge right now, they would be smarter if they were more willing to influence the laws that could come out on this issue instead of punting it to the next congress which may not be so left-wing or letting the States do it.  Neither house leaders seem to want to solve this issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, swordfish said:

The hypothetical "Judge" SF does not care to wallow into that hypothetical debate on a potential side affect of any new hypothetical abortion laws.  Wondering what it has to do with the constitutionality of abortion.  (The topic of this thread).

Hypothetical scenarios are a way to test someone’s position for logical consistency. It does not surprise me that you are unwilling to venture down that path, and risk exposure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all the ins, outs, and what have yous. Tough to keep straight in old Duder’s head. 
My interpretation is that there has never been a specific law providing for legal abortion. RvW prescribed a right to privacy between you and your doctor. 

If all that is true, what’s wrong with asking congress to pass a law and get the president to sign it. Or better yet, just allow the states to regulate it?

I have an opinion, don’t care to debate it, don’t care to justify it, in general don’t even really care to discuss it. This is just another socially divisive issue and the R’s are too stupid to stay out of the fray. Murdock would have been the Senator from Indiana if he could just keep his mouth shut about abortion, and he couldn’t do it. 

I have paid pretty much zero attention to this leak, which was clearly politically motivated. Can we all just take a deep breath and wait to see what the court actually rules before we burn it down?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bobref said:

Hypothetical scenarios are a way to test someone’s position for logical consistency. It does not surprise me that you are unwilling to venture down that path, and risk exposure.

Jeez BR, I have enough personal experience testifying to zoning boards and dealing with lawyers to know NOT to get in an argument with one.......but since when have I not been consistent on my position that this should be decided legislatively, not judicially? 

Oh, and if I'm inconsistent in something, "exposure" on the GID is the least of my worries..... ✌️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, swordfish said:

Jeez BR, I have enough personal experience testifying to zoning boards and dealing with lawyers to know NOT to get in an argument with one.......but since when have I not been consistent on my position that this should be decided legislatively, not judicially? 

Oh, and if I'm inconsistent in something, "exposure" on the GID is the least of my worries..... ✌️

I can certainly live with a legislative response if SCOTUS overturns Roe, but you have to agree a state-by-state patchwork of laws will be a sh*t show. And you have to consider the most important law of all: “The Law of Unintended Consequences.”  The Law states: “Whenever a plan or strategy is implemented, regardless of the degree to which it accomplishes the desired goal, it will generate consequences that are both unintended and unforeseen.”

And I didn’t say you were inconsistent. I said hypothetical questions are used to probe for inconsistency. But since you wouldn’t answer, I can’t tell whether there is logical inconsistency in your positions … although I suspect there is. 😉

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

I can certainly live with a legislative response if SCOTUS overturns Roe, but you have to agree a state-by-state patchwork of laws will be a sh*t show. And you have to consider the most important law of all: “The Law of Unintended Consequences.”  The Law states: “Whenever a plan or strategy is implemented, regardless of the degree to which it accomplishes the desired goal, it will generate consequences that are both unintended and unforeseen.”

And I didn’t say you were inconsistent. I said hypothetical questions are used to probe for inconsistency. But since you wouldn’t answer, I can’t tell whether there is logical inconsistency in your positions … although I suspect there is. 😉

But don't we have a "state-by-state patchwork of laws" regarding a whole host of other issue right now?  And sure, it may be a sh*t show, but it was how our founding fathers intended it to be.  A relatively weak federal government where the real legislation that affect citizens the most happens at the state/local level.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

I can certainly live with a legislative response if SCOTUS overturns Roe, but you have to agree a state-by-state patchwork of laws will be a sh*t show. And you have to consider the most important law of all: “The Law of Unintended Consequences.”  The Law states: “Whenever a plan or strategy is implemented, regardless of the degree to which it accomplishes the desired goal, it will generate consequences that are both unintended and unforeseen.”

And I didn’t say you were inconsistent. I said hypothetical questions are used to probe for inconsistency. But since you wouldn’t answer, I can’t tell whether there is logical inconsistency in your positions … although I suspect there is. 😉

BR - I think you and I are closer aligned on this issue than (maybe) you think.  I certainly agree if RVW is overturned without a federal legislative action on abortion, there will be more to argue about because the states certainly won't be consistent and YES - unintended consequences will more than likely appear.  Overly liberal states will get more liberal and overly conservative states will get more conservative.  I WANT to believe the people we elected will actually do their job and find some middle ground for the US on this issue, but I am also a realist that thinks they still need a wedge issue for re-election.

 although I suspect there is. 😉

And THAT, my friend is why I hope to never be on the opposite side of the courtroom with you.  So far, in any of my depositions or testimony, no lawyer has been able to throw me off.  (I take pride that I have actually been complimented by an opposing lawyer once - and he was tough)  I think you could be relentless wearing me down......So lets not meet in a courtroom, OK?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

But don't we have a "state-by-state patchwork of laws" regarding a whole host of other issue right now?  And sure, it may be a sh*t show, but it was how our founding fathers intended it to be.  A relatively weak federal government where the real legislation that affect citizens the most happens at the state/local level.   

Yes, indeed we do. That doesn’t make adding more desirable. Nor do I think this particular subject matter’s unique character can be overlooked … or overstated. Having said that, I generally agree with you and Jefferson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, swordfish said:

BR - I think you and I are closer aligned on this issue than (maybe) you think.  I certainly agree if RVW is overturned without a federal legislative action on abortion, there will be more to argue about because the states certainly won't be consistent and YES - unintended consequences will more than likely appear.  Overly liberal states will get more liberal and overly conservative states will get more conservative.  I WANT to believe the people we elected will actually do their job and find some middle ground for the US on this issue, but I am also a realist that thinks they still need a wedge issue for re-election.

 although I suspect there is. 😉

And THAT, my friend is why I hope to never be on the opposite side of the courtroom with you.  So far, in any of my depositions or testimony, no lawyer has been able to throw me off.  (I take pride that I have actually been complimented by an opposing lawyer once - and he was tough)  I think you could be relentless wearing me down......So lets not meet in a courtroom, OK?

 

Most of the questions I pose don’t necessarily reflect my personal beliefs. Rather, they are intended to stimulate discussion, force people to re-examine their previous opinions, or play “devil’s advocate.”

I’m just a tired old trial lawyer who has taken a few thousand depositions, and examined several hundred witnesses in court.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

With all the ins, outs, and what have yous. Tough to keep straight in old Duder’s head. 
My interpretation is that there has never been a specific law providing for legal abortion. RvW prescribed a right to privacy between you and your doctor. 

If all that is true, what’s wrong with asking congress to pass a law and get the president to sign it. Or better yet, just allow the states to regulate it?

I have an opinion, don’t care to debate it, don’t care to justify it, in general don’t even really care to discuss it. This is just another socially divisive issue and the R’s are too stupid to stay out of the fray. Murdock would have been the Senator from Indiana if he could just keep his mouth shut about abortion, and he couldn’t do it. 

I have paid pretty much zero attention to this leak, which was clearly politically motivated. Can we all just take a deep breath and wait to see what the court actually rules before we burn it down?

I also think MOST in congress that campaign as pro life would have preferred to remain quiet when not on the campaign trail. I also think most would have preferred that the Court NOT take this case up. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Muda69 said:

But don't we have a "state-by-state patchwork of laws" regarding a whole host of other issue right now?

In my part of the country, the State of Nevada legally protects abortion up to 24 weeks, and the law requires a referendum to repeal. 

For further reading-

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/indy-explains-what-happens-to-nevadas-abortion-laws-if-roe-is-overturned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, DanteEstonia said:

In my part of the country, the State of Nevada legally protects abortion up to 24 weeks, and the law requires a referendum to repeal. 

For further reading-

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/indy-explains-what-happens-to-nevadas-abortion-laws-if-roe-is-overturned

Good for Nevada.  Do you think every state in the union should have the exact same law?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Good for Nevada.  Do you think every state in the union should have the exact same law?

No opinion.

On 5/16/2022 at 7:31 PM, Impartial_Observer said:

Murdock would have been the Senator from Indiana if he could just keep his mouth shut about abortion, and he couldn’t do it. 

The best vote I ever cast was for Richard Mourdock in the 2012 GOP primary. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/06/24/supreme-court-abortion-mississippi-roe-wade-decision/9357361002/

Quote

 The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Americans no longer have a constitutional right to abortion, a watershed decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and erased a reproductive right that had been in place for nearly five decades.

In the court's most closely watched and controversial case in years, a majority of the justices – all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents – held that the right to end a pregnancy was not found in the text of the Constitution nor the nation's history.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority, with the court's liberal justices in dissent. 

"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start," Alito wrote for the majority. "Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences."

"It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives," Alito wrote. 

The decision instantly shifts the focus of one of the nation's most divisive issues to state capitals: Republican lawmakers are set to ban abortion in about half the states while Democratic-led states are likely to reinforce protections for the procedure. Access to abortion, in other words, will depend almost entirely on where a person lives. 

"After today, young women will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers had," Associate Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in a dissent joined by the court's two other liberal justices. "The majority accomplishes that result without so much as considering how women have relied on the right to choose or what it means to take that right away."

Though not unexpected, the court's decision hit like a political and cultural earthquake, reshaping the relationship between millions of Americans and the government. While the opinion will be celebrated by conservatives, it will almost certainly lead to protests, new lawsuits and charges from the left that the nation's highest court – ostensibly above the partisan fray – is just as political as the other branches of the federal government.

That's exactly what happened when a draft opinion in Mississippi's challenge to Roe leaked May 2. The unprecedented breach of Supreme Court protocol, which showed how the conservative justices might overturn Roe, led to protests across the country. The opinion Friday appeared to closely track with the earlier leaked draft.

Anti-abortion groups, which had pushed for Friday's outcome for decades, applauded the decision. 

"Today marks an historic human rights victory for unborn children and their mothers and a bright pro-life future for our nation,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony SBA Pro-Life America. "Every legislature in the land, in every single state and Congress, is now free to allow the will of the people to make its way into the law through our elected representatives."

Experts say the decision may set off challenges to other rights that, like abortion, have been grounded in the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process. Many of those have been taken for granted for years, such as the right to same-sex marriage, the right to interracial marriage and the right to access contraception. 

Democrats and groups that support abortion rights decried the decision.

"Today, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court has achieved the GOP’s dark and extreme goal of ripping away women’s right to make their own reproductive health decisions," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in a statement. "Because of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Party and their supermajority on the Supreme Court, American women today have less freedom than their mothers."

The opinion follows a decades-long movement by conservatives to overturn the high court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which established a constitutional right to abortion. The effort to roll back that right was aided by President Donald Trump, who was elected in 2016 in part on a promise to name justices who would overturn Roe. Over the course of a single term, Trump managed to put three conservative justices on the high court.

 

At issue in the case is a Mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy – earlier than had been permitted under the high court's previous decisions. 

Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the last abortion clinic in Mississippi, challenged the state law in 2018, asserting it conflicted with Roe and a subsequent case in 1992 that upheld Roe. A 7-2 majority in Roe v. Wade established a constitutional right to abortion and allowed people to exercise the right until the end of the second trimester.

A subsequent decision in 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, ended the trimester framework and allowed people to obtain an abortion until viability, the point when a fetus can survive outside the womb or about 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

Two lower federal courts agreed with the clinic, citing Roe and Casey. Mississippi appealed, asking the Supreme Court not only to uphold its ban but also to do away with the constitutional right to abortion altogether. Because the issue is so divisive and personal, the state argued, it should be decided by state lawmakers accountable to voters rather than by federal courts whose jurists enjoy lifetime appointments. 

The frenzy around the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, had almost as much to do with the justices who are on the high court as it does with the Mississippi law. Conservatives enjoy a 6-3 majority on the court for the first time since the Roosevelt administration. Three of them were nominated by Trump, Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. 

Mississippi had explicitly asked the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, calling it "dangerously corrosive to our constitutional system." That is a more aggressive position than the state took when it first brought the case to the court in 2020.

For years, the legal battle over abortion has focused on regulating the procedure, such as requirements that minors inform their parents before ending a pregnancy or requiring doctors performing the procedure to have privileges at nearby hospitals. For anti-abortion groups, the Dobbs case represented the first opportunity in decades to focus squarely on whether the procedure itself is constitutional.

 

Mr. Alito is correct.  This should have always been a decision for the states to decide, not Washington D.C.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, eliminating constitutional right to abortion

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/06/24/supreme-court-abortion-mississippi-roe-wade-decision/9357361002/

Mr. Alito is correct.  This should have always been a decision for the states to decide, not Washington D.C.

 

Yes, or Congress needs to put it in federal law if they want consistency in the country, but I still think they will prefer it remain a wedge issue and leave it to the states.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here Is a State-by-State Rundown of What Will Happen Now That SCOTUS Has Freed Lawmakers To Restrict Abortion

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/

Quote

By repudiating Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that said women have a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, the Supreme Court has freed states to set their own abortion policies. But the impact of the new leeway allowed by the Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization will vary widely across the country. While severe restrictions will be enacted or take effect in many states, abortion will remain legal in most.

Thirteen states have "trigger" bans that are designed to take effect after Roe is overturned. Some of those states, plus others, have enacted laws that were enjoined based on Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed Roe's "central holding." Several states do not currently have bans but are expected to enact them in response to Dobbs, which overturned both of those precedents.

Some states never repealed pre-Roe bans. Politico notes that "court action will likely be necessary to determine whether states' pre-Roe abortion bans can take effect or enjoined laws restricting access to the procedure can be lifted, a process legal experts anticipate could take weeks to months."

Existing statutes range from bans like the Mississippi law upheld in Dobbs, which prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of gestation, to nearly complete prohibitions like the trigger laws. In between are "heartbeat" laws that prohibit abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which typically happens around six weeks into a pregnancy, when women may not even realize they are pregnant.

In terms of practical impact, the cutoff makes a huge difference. Even states that generally allow abortion often restrict it after "viability," the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb. The dividing line for viability is generally placed around 24 weeks of gestation. In 2019, according to data collected by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), just 1 percent of abortions in the United States were performed at 21 weeks or later. Only 4 percent were performed after 15 weeks. But 57 percent were performed after six weeks, and some of the rest also would be covered by the "heartbeat" laws.

Most states are unlikely to ban abortion. In some, abortion rights are protected by statute, by judicial interpretations of state constitutions, or both. In others, there is not enough political support to enact new restrictions.

Here is a state-by-state rundown of what we can expect now that the Supreme Court has decided the Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion after all. Red indicates the 22 states that are certain or likely to soon impose or start enforcing new restrictions on abortion, ranging from moderate to severe. Green indicates the 23 states where abortion will remain broadly legal. Blue indicates the five states where new restrictions are unlikely in the short term but are possible in the longer term, depending on electoral outcomes or judicial decisions.

....

Indiana

Abortion is likely to be restricted by the Republican-controlled legislature, although it's not clear to what extent. In March, 100 of the 110 Republicans in the Illinois General Assembly signed a letter asking Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb to call a special session as soon as possible "should the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling [in Dobbs] expand Indiana's ability to protect unborn children." On Wednesday, Holcomb announced a special session beginning on July 6 to consider tax rebates, but the legislature also could pass an abortion bill.

In response to a 2020 Vote Smart survey, Holcomb said "abortion should always be illegal." But last month, when asked whether he supported a blanket ban without exceptions should the Supreme Court overturn Roe, he was cagey. "I have a hard time being the person that's part of taking of a life," he said. "And I'll review the decision that has impact on that."

....

 

 

Considering our neighbor to the West, Illinois, looks likely to keep abortion legal, look for those Hoosier women seeking such a procedure to head there.

Edited by Muda69
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://trendingpolitics.com/speaker-pelosi-loses-it-over-supreme-courts-decision-there-is-no-right-to-abortion-knab/

Nancy Pelosi - “We had passed that legislation, really, in order to make it the wall the land,” she continued. “It is clear that we just have to win a majority in November. Everything is at stake. If you’re a woman, if you care about women, if you respect women, you know that this is a disgraceful, disgraceful judgment that they made.”

 

Wait a minute......Who already HAS a majority in Congress?  Oh yeah, a wedge issue......Nevermind.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a friend:

#1 - Abortion is NOT a right granted by the Constitution. Women have a right to privacy under the 14th amendment which is what the RVW decision was loosely attributed to. In RVW, SCOTUS made a wrong ruling attempting to "legislate from the bench" to create a Federal rule/precedent making abortions legal. SCOTUS today corrected that.

#2 - CONGRESS (the House and Senate) alone makes Federal laws. They can correct this very easy by MAKING A LAW. The Left holds Majority in both houses of congress. They won't do it because they want this political "Wedge Issue" to remain intact.

#3 - There is little that has really changed in the US, since most states already have laws, the liberal states will be able to now remove nearly (if not all) restrictions from abortions while the conservative states will be able to remain strict and maybe some (2 or 3) will become stricter.

SO - all the activists on both sides - CALM DOWN - This really changes little, but gives the people WE elected something new to run on and keep us divided and hopefully get them votes......✌🇺🇸

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...