Pedantic rant: Mississippi is not trying to overturn Roe. Roe was effectively superseded by Casey in 1992, which maintained the central holding of Roe (abortion access is a constitutional right),...
Pedantic rant: Mississippi is not trying to overturn Roe. Roe was effectively superseded by Casey in 1992, which maintained the central holding of Roe (abortion access is a constitutional right), but replaced the strict trimester framework with a viability framework (currently around 22-24 weeks, which is its own issue: advancements in obstetrics mean viability moves ever lower). Mississippi is trying to overturn Casey, allowing for a ban on abortion before viability. The proposed 15-week threshold isn’t particularly out of line with historic common law (which banned abortion after quickening, around 12-15 weeks) or modern European legislation (generally allowing on-demand abortion during the first trimester). The real issue isn’t the time threshold in this case (Texas’ 6-week ban is absurd, not to mention the bounties), it’s the lack of non-abortion alternatives (comprehensive sex education, contraception access, etc) and TRAP legislation that makes even medical abortions using only pharmaceuticals difficult to perform (something every hospital theoretically should be able to do), neither of which characterize most European countries.
not just Roe. the Christofascists are on the march. their aim is to use their John-Roberts-proof 1 SCOTUS majority to repeal as many advances in equality and social justice as they can. Texas...
not just Roe. the Christofascists are on the march. their aim is to use their John-Roberts-proof 1 SCOTUS majority to repeal as many advances in equality and social justice as they can.
Texas Right to Life, the group behind the Texas abortion ban, filed an amicus brief in this case from Mississippi.
from the second to last page, and also in the screenshots from that tweet:
This is not to say that the Court should announce the overruling of Lawrence and Obergefell if it decides to overrule Roe and Casey in this case. But neither should the Court hesitate to write an opinion that leaves those decisions hanging by a thread. Lawrence and Obergefell, while far less hazardous to human life, are as lawless as Roe.
here they are referring to Lawrence v Texas, a 2003 ruling that struck down a Texas law against homosexual sex, and Obergefell v Hodges, the 2014 ruling that recognized marriage equality in all 50 states.
so this is the group behind the Texas abortion ban just openly saying to SCOTUS "hey, you don't have to do this, but if you felt like it, it'd be pretty great if you found a way to write the ruling so that it rolls back the last 20 years of legal protections for LGBT people, at the same time as you destroy the constitutionally protected right to abortion".
1: John Roberts, while conservative, is also Chief Justice, which means this period of time will be referred to historically as the "Roberts Court" in the same way that we refer to the Warren Court now. and Roberts is deeply concerned with how his historical legacy will be perceived.
prior to Amy Coney Barrett's appointment, conservatives had a 5-4 majority, which meant Roberts could act as somewhat of a brake on the rest of the conservatives. now that they have a 6-3 majority, the other 5 conservatives are a majority on their own, and don't need Roberts.
you can see the effect of this in the most recent Texas abortion ruling, for example, which was 5-4 and had the 3 liberal justices plus Roberts dissenting. Roberts' dissent boils down to "hold on guys, if we overturn Roe in this fucked-up procedural way it's gonna make me look bad, let's just wait a few more months and then we can overturn it the right way after going through all the normal motions of oral arguments and written briefs".
Pedantic rant: Mississippi is not trying to overturn Roe. Roe was effectively superseded by Casey in 1992, which maintained the central holding of Roe (abortion access is a constitutional right), but replaced the strict trimester framework with a viability framework (currently around 22-24 weeks, which is its own issue: advancements in obstetrics mean viability moves ever lower). Mississippi is trying to overturn Casey, allowing for a ban on abortion before viability. The proposed 15-week threshold isn’t particularly out of line with historic common law (which banned abortion after quickening, around 12-15 weeks) or modern European legislation (generally allowing on-demand abortion during the first trimester). The real issue isn’t the time threshold in this case (Texas’ 6-week ban is absurd, not to mention the bounties), it’s the lack of non-abortion alternatives (comprehensive sex education, contraception access, etc) and TRAP legislation that makes even medical abortions using only pharmaceuticals difficult to perform (something every hospital theoretically should be able to do), neither of which characterize most European countries.
Having a hard time seeing how this doesn't end with Roe overturned.
not just Roe. the Christofascists are on the march. their aim is to use their John-Roberts-proof 1 SCOTUS majority to repeal as many advances in equality and social justice as they can.
Texas Right to Life, the group behind the Texas abortion ban, filed an amicus brief in this case from Mississippi.
PDF of the full amicus brief and tweet from a professor at NYU Law with screenshots of the most relevant parts.
from the second to last page, and also in the screenshots from that tweet:
here they are referring to Lawrence v Texas, a 2003 ruling that struck down a Texas law against homosexual sex, and Obergefell v Hodges, the 2014 ruling that recognized marriage equality in all 50 states.
so this is the group behind the Texas abortion ban just openly saying to SCOTUS "hey, you don't have to do this, but if you felt like it, it'd be pretty great if you found a way to write the ruling so that it rolls back the last 20 years of legal protections for LGBT people, at the same time as you destroy the constitutionally protected right to abortion".
1: John Roberts, while conservative, is also Chief Justice, which means this period of time will be referred to historically as the "Roberts Court" in the same way that we refer to the Warren Court now. and Roberts is deeply concerned with how his historical legacy will be perceived.
prior to Amy Coney Barrett's appointment, conservatives had a 5-4 majority, which meant Roberts could act as somewhat of a brake on the rest of the conservatives. now that they have a 6-3 majority, the other 5 conservatives are a majority on their own, and don't need Roberts.
you can see the effect of this in the most recent Texas abortion ruling, for example, which was 5-4 and had the 3 liberal justices plus Roberts dissenting. Roberts' dissent boils down to "hold on guys, if we overturn Roe in this fucked-up procedural way it's gonna make me look bad, let's just wait a few more months and then we can overturn it the right way after going through all the normal motions of oral arguments and written briefs".
When the SCOTUS rules 7-to-6 to uphold Roe.
( </snark>)