In Arkansas, a trigger law is expected to take effect within days and ban almost all abortions, with an exception for saving the “life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency.” Performing an abortion, or attempting to perform one, could lead to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $100,000.
Idaho
A trigger law in Idaho is expected to go into effect 30 days after the Supreme Court’s ruling and would make providing an abortion punishable by up to five years in prison. Exemptions would be made in the event that an abortion is performed to prevent a pregnant woman from dying, or in cases of rape or incest.
Kentucky
Kentucky passed a bill in 2019 that is expected to go into effect immediately and would ban abortions and make them a felony. There are exceptions when an abortion is needed to prevent injuring or killing a pregnant woman. Rape and incest are not exceptions.
Louisiana
A law in Louisiana is expected to go into effect immediately and would ban anyone from performing an abortion or providing a woman with drugs to interrupt a pregnancy. The state would allow an abortion to prevent serious injury or death, but not for rape or incest.
Mississippi
In Mississippi, a law would require that the state’s attorney general first confirm that Roe v. Wade has been overturned by the Supreme Court before abortions are prohibited. Saving the life of a mother or cases of rape are exceptions.
Missouri
A law in Missouri is expected to go into effect within days of the ruling and would make it a felony to perform an abortion except in the event of a medical emergency.
North Dakota
North Dakota’s law would make performing an abortion a felony unless it is done to save the life of a mother. It is expected to go into effect 30 days after the Supreme Court ruling.
Oklahoma
A bill in Oklahoma would make abortions illegal, punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a $100,000 fine, unless the abortion would save the life of a pregnant woman.
South Dakota
In South Dakota, a trigger law is expected to go into effect immediately and ban anyone from performing an abortion or providing a woman with drugs that could cause one, including in cases of rape or incest.
Tennessee
A bill in Tennessee is expected to go into effect about 30 days after the Supreme Court ruling. The law would ban abortions in the state, with exceptions to prevent the death or serious injury of a pregnant woman. The law has no exceptions for cases of rape or incest.
Texas
In Texas, a law banning abortions is expected to go into effect 30 days after the Supreme Court decision, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Abortion would be allowed to prevent a pregnant woman from dying or from a serious injury.
Utah
A law in Utah is expected to go into effect within days, banning abortions with exceptions for preventing death or serious injury to the mother, cases of rape or incest, or the possibility of severe birth defects.
Wyoming
In Wyoming, a law banning abortions is expected to go into effect within 30 days of the Supreme Court’s decision. The state would allow exceptions in cases of rape or sexual assault, or to prevent the death or “substantial and irreversible” injury of a pregnant woman.
Worth mentioning that here in Wisconsin we're most of the way there. There's an ancient law on the books which seems like a toss up if it'll be enforceable but until that's settled abortion...
Worth mentioning that here in Wisconsin we're most of the way there. There's an ancient law on the books which seems like a toss up if it'll be enforceable but until that's settled abortion providers are stopping dead in their tracks.
I'm not sure why Alabama keeps getting let off in these articles talking about existing bans or trigger laws. Alabama has a 2019 law that had an injunction against it which was immediately lifted,...
I'm not sure why Alabama keeps getting let off in these articles talking about existing bans or trigger laws. Alabama has a 2019 law that had an injunction against it which was immediately lifted, completely banning abortion except for cases where the life of the mother is in danger.
I was conceived in 1973, the year Roe was decided. I was conceived through sexual assault. I was conceived by an underage girl. My mother was kicked out of her home due to this, and when she gave...
I was conceived in 1973, the year Roe was decided. I was conceived through sexual assault. I was conceived by an underage girl. My mother was kicked out of her home due to this, and when she gave birth, she gave me up for adoption because a homeless teenager has no capacity to raise a child. I mention all of this because if there was ever a poster child for abortion, I was it.
The fact that she didn't abort is completely and utterly irrelevant. I don't even care that my existence is due to her not getting one. Women's health and reproduction is theirs and theirs alone. No one has the right to tell a woman that she has to deliver a child she does not want. I don't care if it's conceived through sexual assault, carelessness, incest, or a loving relationship, those are all red herrings. Her body is hers alone.
That in multiple states, a woman can be denied the ability to end a life threatening pregnancy is appalling in a developed country in the 21st century.
I'm sure that most people here have already seen this by now, but for anyone who isn't following this or isn't familiar with American politics, Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion on...
I'm sure that most people here have already seen this by now, but for anyone who isn't following this or isn't familiar with American politics, Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a shot across the bow regarding contraceptive rights, queer intimacy, and gay marriage.
In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents.
Lawrence allowed consensual sexual activity, particularly for queer couples.
Obergefell allowed same-sex marriages (and, personally speaking, is the ruling that enabled my husband and I to marry one another, as well as to have our marriage recognized federally and by other states we travel to).
Thomas is telegraphing future attacks here. His words are not hollow. They are foreshadowing.
And just to be clear, the "due process" he's talking about are clauses in the fifth and fourteenth amendments from the fifth: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property,...
And just to be clear, the "due process" he's talking about are clauses in the fifth and fourteenth amendments
from the fifth: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The text of the fourteenth is pretty similar. Most people can see the issue here; the clauses are extremely vague. What does "life" mean? What does "liberty" mean? What does "property" and "Due process of law" mean. Hell, what does "Person" mean?
That's part of the reason why these court decisions are so controversial among constitutional law scholars, even ignoring their status as hot button "culture war" type issues (but maybe that may even be part of the reason why they're controversial from that aspect as well).
The constitution is very vague around what any of those terms mean, so it's up to judges to determine; it's basically left up to their personal whims. The original argument for roe is that the fourteenth amendment, via the due process clause, provided a fundamental "right to privacy" (despite the amendment not actually saying that explicitly) and because of that right to privacy, a woman has the ability to determine what happens with her own body. It's a bodily integrity argument that has nothing to do with when life begins or anything like that.
From a moral standpoint, its a strong argument, but from a constitutional law standpoint, it's a pretty shaky one. You're arguing that an implied (but never stated) right to privacy exists based on a due process clause, which then (again) implies the right to body integrity in the case of a pregnancy.
Essentially, while you can say the decision today is morally wrong (and it is), it's hard to make the argument that it's constitutionally wrong, because the original decision was already on such shaky ground.
This has, for the last 40 years, been a guillotine hanging over the neck of reproductive rights. Without a constitutional amendment explicitly guaranteeing bodily integrity and all that implies, any SCOTUS who is either A. a conservative morally opposed to abortion, or B. a black and white originalist who will automatically shut down any tenuous interpretation of constitutional text was going to reverse roe. It was really just a matter of time.
Until we can get this enshrined in the constitution (fat chance at any point in our lifetimes; the constitutional amendment process is heavily biased towards conservatives, demographics-wise), this will always just be at the whim of whoever the sitting SCOTUS justices are, unfortunately.
i'm fairly certain that either in grisworld or in roe's decision there was a line that literally said "if you squint your eyes...at the ninth amendment" and then "there is a penumbra of a right to...
i'm fairly certain that either in grisworld or in roe's decision there was a line that literally said "if you squint your eyes...at the ninth amendment" and then "there is a penumbra of a right to privacy." not exactly the strongest of constitutional arguments.
what the US needs the most is an amendment to make amendments easier to pass. not easy, but easier such that it is possible. that way the unelected and unaccountable SCOTUS will or at least could hopefully be once again seen as a neutral interpreter of the law as they won't be the only path to essentially MAKE certain laws anymore.
Hogwash. The interpretation of there being a penumbra of rights was solid enough to have established 50 years of precedent and sustained across multiple challenges. It was only overturned on...
but from a constitutional law standpoint, it's a pretty shaky one. You're arguing that an implied (but never stated) right to privacy exists based on a due process clause, which then (again) implies the right to body integrity in the case of a pregnancy.
Essentially, while you can say the decision today is morally wrong (and it is), it's hard to make the argument that it's constitutionally wrong, because the original decision was already on such shaky ground.
Hogwash. The interpretation of there being a penumbra of rights was solid enough to have established 50 years of precedent and sustained across multiple challenges. It was only overturned on utterly flimsy logic than even laypeople find holes they can poke through. The original Roe ruling only had two dissents. The American legal system doesn’t just operate on the black letter interpretation of the text of the constitution with no other considerations. Precedent and case law matter.
the decision was the morally sound thing to do but it was essentially inventing law. doesn't mean it was actually valid. casey v planned parenthood 20 years later basically completely threw out...
the decision was the morally sound thing to do but it was essentially inventing law.
the original roe only had two dissents
doesn't mean it was actually valid. casey v planned parenthood 20 years later basically completely threw out the roe reasoning and tried to come up with its own constitutional basis (and again failed).
otoh overturning a 50 year old precedent is also essentially unheard of and the fact the judges made comparisons to the overturning of plessy is disgusting.
they are right roe was unsound, but they were wrong it should be overturned both morally and practically
No the intent behind the due process clause is pretty clear and the only reason it is approached as controversial is because conservatives want to engage in motivated reasoning to strike it down....
but it was essentially inventing law.
No the intent behind the due process clause is pretty clear and the only reason it is approached as controversial is because conservatives want to engage in motivated reasoning to strike it down.
The only valid contention would have been to dismiss it as a “political question,” which the dissent didn’t do. Asserting that states have a positive right to interfere in people’s bodies without any compelling social interest is no less “inventing law” and I see no compelling argument for why we should assume states have unlimited authority over the people living in them when the constitution pretty explicitly states the opposite.
Which is why Rehnquist’s dissent doesn’t bother with contesting the interpretation of the due process clause. He focuses on issues of standing and whether regulation of a medical procedure can be construed as “private.”
this is really an argument about textualism/originalism vs original intent vs a living constitution interpretation and the scope of amendments. supreme court, being unelected, should take a...
this is really an argument about textualism/originalism vs original intent vs a living constitution interpretation and the scope of amendments. supreme court, being unelected, should take a textual approach. it is up to the lawmakers to write better laws.
And the problem is that since Roe v Wade, conservatives have been intentionally packing originalists into the court, because they disliked losing the living-document arguements with a changing...
And the problem is that since Roe v Wade, conservatives have been intentionally packing originalists into the court, because they disliked losing the living-document arguements with a changing society.
An originalist would argue computer files are not constitutionally protected 'papers,' because computers were not invented yet and thus the founders could not have accounted for it.
This is obviously insane nonsense, the kind of delusion perpetuated when your agenda overrides logic.
Originalism treats the founding fathers as infallible, the way religions usually do gods.
And worse yet, originalists pretend to be oracles who can divine the founding father's intentions, despite history being subject to interpretation and the founding fathers all having had different...
Originalism treats the founding fathers as infallible, the way religions usually do gods.
And worse yet, originalists pretend to be oracles who can divine the founding father's intentions, despite history being subject to interpretation and the founding fathers all having had different perspectives on the Constitution.
The obsession with "our history and traditions" leads to absurd rulings like this one, where evidently we must be more deferential to what people thought about abortion in the 1600s than the 2000s.
Not really, that's kind of a misunderstanding with the justifications for originalism. Originalists recognize that the founding fathers aren't infallible, which is why there's an amendment...
Originalism treats the founding fathers as infallible; the way religions usually do gods.
Not really, that's kind of a misunderstanding with the justifications for originalism. Originalists recognize that the founding fathers aren't infallible, which is why there's an amendment process. The problem with strict living constitution adherents is that the process is inherently undemocratic. When you have lifetime unelected appointees determining what should and shouldn't be allowed with literally zero oversight, you go from having a society where the legislature is in theory accountable to its constituents, to a society where the de-facto legislature are a bunch of old people with lifetime terms and no recourse against them.
I think both schools of thought have their merits, but it's not as simple as saying "originalism is bad". There's a reason why the legislature exists, after all.
You’re making an argument for why they shouldn’t be a lifetime appointment, not an argument for originalism which, again, is an unworkable and nonsensical legal doctrine that even its adherents...
You’re making an argument for why they shouldn’t be a lifetime appointment, not an argument for originalism which, again, is an unworkable and nonsensical legal doctrine that even its adherents don’t actually believe.
There is no argument. Textualism is a garbage legal doctrine that was made out of whole cloth by reactionary psychos solely to create a framework to support their motivated reasoning to roll back...
There is no argument. Textualism is a garbage legal doctrine that was made out of whole cloth by reactionary psychos solely to create a framework to support their motivated reasoning to roll back the progress made after reconstruction and the new deal. You just need to read the utter tripe being put out by self-styled textualists, like Alito, to realize this. It has as much practical and intellectual validity as the doctrine of nullification that the previous generation of reactionary psychopaths tried to push.
That’s why they totally ignore it any time it’s inconvenient. It’s a canard.
that is true that is a matter of opinion. i agree with @papasquat and many others that giving legislative power to 9 unelected lifetime appointees is terrible and that's why textualism is the way...
That’s why they totally ignore it any time it’s inconvenient.
that is true
It’s a canard.
that is a matter of opinion. i agree with @papasquat and many others that giving legislative power to 9 unelected lifetime appointees is terrible and that's why textualism is the way to go. the nature of the court system suggests that judges would be best making decisions with small-c conservatism.
Claiming the due process doctrine of the court for the past 50 years constitutes “legislation” is itself just begging the question on originalism. Like all arguments for originalism it relies on...
and many others that giving legislative power to 9 unelected lifetime appointees is terrible and that's why textualism is the way to go.
Claiming the due process doctrine of the court for the past 50 years constitutes “legislation” is itself just begging the question on originalism. Like all arguments for originalism it relies on circular reasoning.
you're being intentionally obtuse and it is impossible to argue productively i am going to stop responding. many of the recent decisions of the court have been effectively judge-made law. like a...
you're being intentionally obtuse and it is impossible to argue productively i am going to stop responding.
many of the recent decisions of the court have been effectively judge-made law. like a right to privacy. nothing in the 5th, 14th, or 9th amendment suggest a general right to privacy. if the lawmakers wanted it, they should have put it down in writing as that's all we have to work with.
if you disagree, that is ok, but don't pretend like it's the only correct perspective.
fwiw i believe the "fundamental right to own a gun" is also an invention of the court (it is essentially scalia's little legislative baby) and also how the first amendment has been misconstrued to protect money as speech.
That’s not legislation. You seem to fundamentally not understand how the common law tradition works. Calling it legislation is just begging the question on an originalism talking point.
That’s not legislation. You seem to fundamentally not understand how the common law tradition works. Calling it legislation is just begging the question on an originalism talking point.
the US explicitly chose to depart from a common-law system for the exact reasons I've argued. that's part of why we have a written constitution. in theory only the civil/contract law court system...
the US explicitly chose to depart from a common-law system for the exact reasons I've argued. that's part of why we have a written constitution.
in theory only the civil/contract law court system should be common law
Now you're just making up history to suit your argument, another hallmark of originalist thought. The US has not "departed from a common law system." At most the federal courts have said there...
the US explicitly chose to depart from a common-law system for the exact reasons I've argued. that's part of why we have a written constitution.
Now you're just making up history to suit your argument, another hallmark of originalist thought. The US has not "departed from a common law system." At most the federal courts have said there isn't a general federal common law and they defer to state statutes when issuing rulings. Judging establishing law through precedent is fundamental to how the American system works. It betrays having absolutely no understanding of how laws are made to assume that lawyers in Congress can sort out every technicality by statute, which is why literally no country in the world does this. It's absurd and impracticable, and even originalists know this to be true, which is why they ignore 'originalism' or just make up history to suit their idea of what the Framers would have wanted any time things turn out in ways they don't like. If this was actually a sincere belief among originalists, they'd be studying history instead of law, because historians have different methods of interrogating sources than lawyers do. But it's not a sincere approach to legal analysis, it's a reactionary reflex.
from wikipedia: "In 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), overruled earlier precedent,[134] and held "There is no federal general common law," thus...
from wikipedia:
"In 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), overruled earlier precedent,[134] and held "There is no federal general common law," thus confining the federal courts to act only as interstitial interpreters of law originating elsewhere. E.g., Texas Industries v. Radcliff, 451 U.S. 630 (1981) (without an express grant of statutory authority, federal courts cannot create rules of intuitive justice, for example, a right to contribution from co-conspirators). Post-1938, federal courts deciding issues that arise under state law are required to defer to state court interpretations of state statutes, or reason what a state's highest court would rule if presented with the issue, or to certify the question to the state's highest court for resolution.
Later courts have limited Erie slightly, to create a few situations where United States federal courts are permitted to create federal common law rules without express statutory authority, for example, where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests, such as foreign affairs, or financial instruments issued by the federal government. See, e.g., Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943) (giving federal courts the authority to fashion common law rules with respect to issues of federal power, in this case negotiable instruments backed by the federal government); see also International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) (creating a cause of action for misappropriation of "hot news" that lacks any statutory grounding); but see National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841, 843–44, 853 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting continued vitality of INS "hot news" tort under New York state law, but leaving open the question of whether it survives under federal law). Except on Constitutional issues, Congress is free to legislatively overrule federal courts' common law.[135]"
there are common-law elements, like precedent, and as you said those are necessary as a practical means. but the US federal court system wouldn't be best characterized as a common-law system
I already addressed this with this: That's not saying it's not a common law system anymore, it's saying there isn't a universal federal one and they defer to state level common laws in rulings...
I already addressed this with this:
At most the federal courts have said there isn't a general federal common law and they defer to state statutes when issuing rulings.
That's not saying it's not a common law system anymore, it's saying there isn't a universal federal one and they defer to state level common laws in rulings instead. It's not saying, as you suggest, that the US court system is restricted only to the strict statutory text.
Roe was in place for 49 years as precedent. It's bullshit that SCOTUS thinks they should get to overturn that for "states' rights" (while not letting states' rights determine concealed carry...),...
Roe was in place for 49 years as precedent. It's bullshit that SCOTUS thinks they should get to overturn that for "states' rights" (while not letting states' rights determine concealed carry...), but at the same time there were 22 years where Dems had control of all of Congress and could have passed a law to enshrine it instead of relying on precedent. A precedent they knew the right wing was coming for.
SCOTUS is bullshit, but legally speaking your argument isn't great. The court has precedent to overthrow precedent, such as segregation. Roe vs Wade was based on the right to privacy, which was...
SCOTUS is bullshit, but legally speaking your argument isn't great.
The court has precedent to overthrow precedent, such as segregation. Roe vs Wade was based on the right to privacy, which was always a weak argument.
What is bullshit is the clear partisan lean of the supreme court, based largely on presidents who lost the popular vote. There are significantly weaker arguments that the conservative court is happy to leave standing as they benefit one political party, such as Citizens United, Bush v Gore etc...
The supreme court biggest bullshit ruling this year was overruling state courts interpretation of state constitutions and simply saying let the illegal gerrymandered district lines remain, effectively allowing states lawmakers to gerrymander as they see fit.
This is on top of a ruling that nullifies federal lawmakers ability to protect voting rights. Because they ruled the Voting Rights Act no longer applies to any jurisdictions. Effectively allowing states lawmakers to overrule federal lawmakers when it comes to federal voting rights.
It's a naked power grab by lifetime appointees.
And it means all unpopular & harmful state laws have no hope of being over ruled by any oversight, for as long as they continue to benefit one political party.
Ignoring Bush Jr, a twice impeached, one-term president who lost the popular vote twice got 3 SCOTUS picks, and it will fuck us good for the next 50 years. But thank god we didn't have to deal...
What is bullshit is the clear partisan lean of the supreme court, based largely on presidents who lost the popular vote.
Ignoring Bush Jr, a twice impeached, one-term president who lost the popular vote twice got 3 SCOTUS picks, and it will fuck us good for the next 50 years. But thank god we didn't have to deal with that evil woman and her email server.
Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch and always has been, and it's always highlighted a pretty huge gap in the US constitution. There's nothing in the body or amendments that guarantees bodily integrity....
Roe vs Wade was based on the right to privacy, which was always a weak argument.
Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch and always has been, and it's always highlighted a pretty huge gap in the US constitution. There's nothing in the body or amendments that guarantees bodily integrity. The fourth, and parts of the fourteenth have been interpreted that way, but there's nothing explicitly in the text that's guarantees it. It's a huge oversight that has caused a ton of issues in my opinion.
Fundamentally, I don't think that the government, or any other person has the right to force an adult to do something (or not do something) that primarily affects their own bodies. That includes abortions, but also things like wearing a helmet on a bicycle, whether they want to take drugs (recreational or therapeutic; like vaccines), organ donation, blood and urine tests, euthanasia and assisted suicide, force feeding, and probably dozens of other issues I'm not even thinking of.
It really, really upsets me that in 2022, we still think we have the right to control other people's bodies. A constitutional amendment unequivocally enshrining the absolute rights of people to their own bodies seems like a complete moral no brainer to me.
Both Madison and Hamilton’s biggest fear about inclusion of the Bill of Rights was that it would be construed to mean these were the only rights to which people were entitled. In their minds, the...
There's nothing in the body or amendments that guarantees bodily integrity. The fourth, and parts of the fourteenth have been interpreted that way, but there's nothing explicitly in the text that's guarantees it. It's a huge oversight that has caused a ton of issues in my opinion.
Both Madison and Hamilton’s biggest fear about inclusion of the Bill of Rights was that it would be construed to mean these were the only rights to which people were entitled. In their minds, the constitutional system of checks and balances was the actual, practical guarantor of people’s rights. Not the set of rules attached on the back end of it.
Saying that rights have to be explicitly codified in the document to count is ceding the argument to originalism cranks. This interpretation was not part of the American legal tradition until some neoconfederate reactionaries decided they had to manufacture some post hoc nonsense to justify rolling back all of social progress since the 14th amendment was signed.
I can comfortably say that our country, in its current form, will never amend its constitution again. In my opinion we’re a few decades out from a collapse of the federal government. Maybe a few...
I can comfortably say that our country, in its current form, will never amend its constitution again. In my opinion we’re a few decades out from a collapse of the federal government. Maybe a few years out from a successful coup. I’d recommend moving to a sane, wealthy state or leaving the country before then.
I agree with minimal laws surrounding bodily autonomy. In a sane world, we shouldn't need any laws about bodily autonomy (for or against) because it would be the underlying foundation of literally...
helmet on a bicycle
I agree with minimal laws surrounding bodily autonomy. In a sane world, we shouldn't need any laws about bodily autonomy (for or against) because it would be the underlying foundation of literally everything. Sadly, we do not currently live in this world.
Not having helmet laws will kill off a lot of idiots real quick. I've decided I'm ok with that.
Source: I am only alive today because I was wearing a helmet a week ago when I hit a bad bump on my bike and fell off it. I was going about 8 mph, landed on my knee and head at same time. Got 8 stitches in my chin after profusely bleeding everywhere. It still hurts to walk (will probably need a bit of physical therapy), but thanks to the deadening crack from my helmet, my brain wasn't injured at all. Our bodies are surprisingly resiliant. Except for our brains. Wear a goddamn helmet people.
There was never a pro-choice majority in the Senate until 2018 at least. And there still isn't a supermajority to break the filibuster. People need to figure out that American political parties do...
but at the same time there were 22 years where Dems had control of all of Congress and could have passed a law to enshrine it instead of relying on precedent.
There was never a pro-choice majority in the Senate until 2018 at least. And there still isn't a supermajority to break the filibuster. People need to figure out that American political parties do not have the power to meaningfully whip votes. If the caucus has holdouts the only remedy is to bribe them with pork to look the other way.
I agree with the overall sentiment here but at the same time, there are other options. For every carrot, there is a stick. I think at this point in American politics, there are plenty of people on...
People need to figure out that American political parties do not have the power to meaningfully whip votes. If the caucus has holdouts the only remedy is to bribe them with pork to look the other way.
I agree with the overall sentiment here but at the same time, there are other options. For every carrot, there is a stick. I think at this point in American politics, there are plenty of people on the left who would like to see the stick in action, even if that disrupts the civility that Democrats seem to hold so dearly.
I’d love to hear what stick people think any Democratic Party leader could credibly wield to get the hold outs in their caucus in line. If the fact that their failure to break the filibuster to...
I’d love to hear what stick people think any Democratic Party leader could credibly wield to get the hold outs in their caucus in line. If the fact that their failure to break the filibuster to get voting rights passed will almost guarantee their own removal from the majority in the next election doesn’t move them what will?
The holdouts clearly don't care about anything other than their own interests, so going after their power is probably a good place to start. Not that I think it would make much of a difference,...
The holdouts clearly don't care about anything other than their own interests, so going after their power is probably a good place to start. Not that I think it would make much of a difference, but at the very least it might be nice to hear Biden or some other high-ranking Democrats say something along the lines of, "Hey, maybe Joe Manchin shouldn't have his committee positions." Or, "Kyrsten Sinema should face a tough primary when she's up for reelection." Of course, they could go a hell of a lot further and do something like investigate Manchin for his shady ties to the coal industry, but hey, let's not get too carried away.
If you want a good example of the stick in action, look to the other side of the aisle. There, you have Republicans nuking Liz Cheney for refusing to support the fraudulent election lie and condemning Trump in the wake of Jan 6th. Meanwhile, Manchin and Sinema can tank the entire Democratic platform and Democrats basically shrug their shoulders. That's the part that is so frustrating and deflating, in my opinion. If you're going to fail, at least show people you are fighting tooth and nail for your agenda.
There's a bit more to Sinema for that, but honestly that sounds like the worst thing you can do from a big D strategical point of view. Manchin is an election miracle maker - that's just the...
There's a bit more to Sinema for that, but honestly that sounds like the worst thing you can do from a big D strategical point of view. Manchin is an election miracle maker - that's just the reality. He's a democratic senator from the 2nd most Republican State in the US. West Virginia went +40 points to Trump in 2020. Plus FORTY.
F-O-R-T-Y
It seems infinitely better to try and get another senate seat in one of the many, many purple background states so that Manchin isn't the deciding vote, as opposed to rocking the boat in the state where there's a FIFTY point delta between the Presidential and Senate seat and that makes up your tenuous 50/50 "majority".
Manchin is a billion percent better than whatever hellspawn would normally come out of a +40 R state, and no party line democrat has anything near a chance. No, that's not an "excuse" for his behavior - he is what he is, a relatively conservative politician. It's the reality that it's way better to have him than not from a strategic point of view.
Yes, that works in the abstract. But that takes 4 months, 6 before it takes effect. And then 4 years later if that fails. Manchin can do what most other conservatives do: Lie to their base to get...
It seems infinitely better to try and get another senate seat in one of the many, many purple background states so that Manchin isn't the deciding vote, as opposed to rocking the boat in the state where there's a FIFTY point delta between the Presidential and Senate seat and that makes up your tenuous 50/50 "majority".
Yes, that works in the abstract. But that takes 4 months, 6 before it takes effect. And then 4 years later if that fails.
Manchin can do what most other conservatives do: Lie to their base to get elected. Then do whatever they want, blame the other party when they catch flak.
Edit: Also, doesn't trying to sway purple states also result in this same level of wishy-washy "but you can't alienate the conservatives?"
I forget the source, but I recall studies that found the 'swing voter' is insignifcant, if they really exist at all. It's all about mobilizing nonvoters. Trump mobilized votes because he was a celebrity of sorts, just like Reagan. Conservatives mobilize voters with fear tactics to stir their base. Democrats mobilize voters by not being Republicans.
There's the gigantic swath of Independants that go unmobilized because they (somewhat accurately) see that the D/R battle doesn't really affect their day to day lives. Perhaps if Democrats were as effective at rolling back regressive policy or implementing progressive policy as Republicans are fewer people would feel that way.
Shame is one of the most powerful motivators there is. Biden should have been calling out the Republicans and other detractors by name. 'We don't have the votes to fix this' does not have the...
There, you have Republicans nuking Liz Cheney for refusing to support the fraudulent election lie and condemning Trump in the wake of Jan 6th
Shame is one of the most powerful motivators there is. Biden should have been calling out the Republicans and other detractors by name. 'We don't have the votes to fix this' does not have the gravitas that 'We would have the votes if Senators X,Y,Z would support us.'
Unsure about Sinema, but Manchin will for sure change parties if he loses his committee positions. So it’s not a real threat for him. The Republicans can stick it to Liz Cheney because they have a...
so going after their power is probably a good place to start
Unsure about Sinema, but Manchin will for sure change parties if he loses his committee positions. So it’s not a real threat for him.
The Republicans can stick it to Liz Cheney because they have a systemic advantage through Senate malapportionment and congressional gerrymandering that gives them a lot more room to screw around. They also have a voter base whose brains have been turned to mush by propaganda outlets which creates a strong pressure to intensify their craziness. Meanwhile, the mainstream media is also rigged for conservative interests due to their reflexive tendency to both sides fascism.
This is the operational context Democratic leaders have to function in. And that’s independent of their own blinders owning to each being a million years old.
...not really. congress is generally only allowed to pass laws related to the powers enumerated in section 1 article 8. a very common enumerated power used to pass laws is the commerce clause,...
but at the same time there were 22 years where Dems had control of all of Congress and could have passed a law to enshrine it instead of relying on precedent
...not really. congress is generally only allowed to pass laws related to the powers enumerated in section 1 article 8. a very common enumerated power used to pass laws is the commerce clause, which after gonzales v raich (2005) essentially means any law can be passed. a law regulating state's power to control abortion would still likely be struck down as it falls under police power (regulating morality, health of citizens), which is understood to be left to the states. the only true legislative route was to pass an amendment...which was never going to happen.
Such a law might also have some dangerous implications. Namely, that if Congress could protect abortion rights across the nation, that implies that they can also outlaw it. A republican majority...
Such a law might also have some dangerous implications. Namely, that if Congress could protect abortion rights across the nation, that implies that they can also outlaw it. A republican majority in the future could then, by that precedent, pass a law banning abortion protections across the US, even in the California's and New Yorks of the States.
That being said, you can argue that at least in that situation there's a clear mechanism for citizen feedback (e.g voting), and that Republicans may try such a thing precedent or not.
Such a law might also have some dangerous implications. Namely, that if Congress could protect abortion rights across the nation, that implies that they can also outlaw it. A republican majority in the future could then, by that precedent, pass a law banning abortion protections across the US, even in the California's and New Yorks of the States.
Not true. The Federal government funds so many state development projects that simply adding contingencies to the funding has the effect of a rule. If they want to outlaw abortion they can say...
Not true. The Federal government funds so many state development projects that simply adding contingencies to the funding has the effect of a rule. If they want to outlaw abortion they can say deal with the electoral fallout of having all their CMS and HHS funding pulled.
that is true but that isn't exactly very stable ground. what happens when republicans gain control of the govt. again and threaten the opposite? it worked for raising the drinking age because that...
that is true but that isn't exactly very stable ground. what happens when republicans gain control of the govt. again and threaten the opposite? it worked for raising the drinking age because that was fairly bipartisan. it's a different story for abortion.
Laws are just social agreements about how to act collectively. There is no magic force that binds people to abide by rules when it inconveniences them, people just make a choice to do so. There...
Exemplary
that is true but that isn't exactly very stable ground. what happens when republicans gain control of the govt. again and threaten the opposite?
Laws are just social agreements about how to act collectively. There is no magic force that binds people to abide by rules when it inconveniences them, people just make a choice to do so. There was never "stable ground." It was fictitious. If sources of authority think they have legitimacy to do something fucked up, they will do the fucked up thing. The only thing that stops them is the political power of their opponents. Not rules. The power is what makes them abide by the rules not the other way around.
Like I said in a separate reply, elections have consequences. If we consistently elect people who have no respect for rule of law or individual rights or autonomy, the government will behave in ways that disregard those things. There is no set of rules that stops it but to stop electing unworthy people who hate us and want us immiserated or dead.
I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.
A lawsuit would have to prove the law is unconstitutional. Roe's decision was made under the court's opinion that abortion is protected by the constitution, this court disagrees. One group says...
A lawsuit would have to prove the law is unconstitutional. Roe's decision was made under the court's opinion that abortion is protected by the constitution, this court disagrees.
One group says abortion is protected by the Constitution another group says it's not. The group in power at the time gets to decide and this group said that abortion isn't in the Constitution so obviously it's not protected by it.
If a law is passed then the fight is reversed, so the group that is pushing to say "abortion is not in the Constitution" has to instead prove that abortion is unconstitutional. Which is a higher bar to pass as "I don't like this law" doesn't equal "unconstitutional."
Yeah it'd be something that'd be hard to call one way or the other. Basically, the argument would be whether it falls under the Commerce Clause (used as the conduit for the Civil Rights Act, for...
Yeah it'd be something that'd be hard to call one way or the other. Basically, the argument would be whether it falls under the Commerce Clause (used as the conduit for the Civil Rights Act, for instance) or Police Powers
police power, in U.S. constitutional law, the permissible scope of federal or state legislation so far as it may affect the rights of an individual when those rights conflict with the promotion and maintenance of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public.
which are solidly for the states to decide.
I think it'd be also be possible that the court not hear any cases on such a hypothetical law for a few years, to avoid bumping the beehive.
In any case, it's probably something worth platforming on, given the midterms.
Everything with the Supreme Court and power and legitimacy is very complicated. The Supreme Court is extremely under-defined in the constitution. Their main power to do things like this is...
Everything with the Supreme Court and power and legitimacy is very complicated. The Supreme Court is extremely under-defined in the constitution.
Their main power to do things like this is Judicial Review... which isn't even in the Constitution, it's just implied by the Constitution, and then Marbury v. Madison happened and no one said everything.
In some sense, what you're saying is true - they can just say that abortion is under police power => state's to decide. But de facto the SC does need to watch itself, because Congress is given the ultimate power from the Constitution, and can legislate the judicial branch to oblivion if they so wish. Even Judicial Review isn't a codified part of the US government.
So it's always this dance between the Court and Congress, because at some point if they're just straight up rejecting Congressional laws passed with the mandate of the people for bogus reasons, the mandate of the people will then be to nullify the Congress (lots of mechanisms for this, e.g court packing). In effect, the Supreme Court needs to rule in a way that is at least acceptable enough to the public to avoid the public destroying them through the legislative branch.
This almost happened with FDR, but in the end public backlash caused FDR to cease his court packing attempt, and the fright from the possibility of court packing got the SC to stop nullifying New Deal packages.
We are all just so fucked. This country is a hellscape nightmare right now. I feel so bad for all the younger generations to come that will have to spend their lives undoing the terrible things...
We are all just so fucked. This country is a hellscape nightmare right now.
I feel so bad for all the younger generations to come that will have to spend their lives undoing the terrible things their parents did.
My child, when learning that our garden would produce more food than we would be able to eat, replied with: "Oh, so we'll just give it away to anyone who wants it" Never been so proud. It's not a...
My child, when learning that our garden would produce more food than we would be able to eat, replied with:
"Oh, so we'll just give it away to anyone who wants it"
Never been so proud. It's not a lost cause till we give up.
As a Texan, I’m flying a big American flag in distress in the most visible spot of my rather-prominent yard today. Fully expect slashed tires or a brick through the window, but worth.
As a Texan, I’m flying a big American flag in distress in the most visible spot of my rather-prominent yard today.
Fully expect slashed tires or a brick through the window, but worth.
Not surprising based on the leaked opinion, but still disappointing that so many states are going to outlaw abortion in all cases. The suffering this is going to lead to for so many people (both...
Not surprising based on the leaked opinion, but still disappointing that so many states are going to outlaw abortion in all cases. The suffering this is going to lead to for so many people (both alive now, and those not yet born) over the next couple decades is going to be huge.
In related news, today the Supreme Court overturned New York's century-old concealed carry law. All other concealed carry laws in several other states died with it. Seems like while women can't...
As @AugustusFerdinand pointed out, Roe has been around already for 49 years. The media landscape and social media is a completely foreign thing compared to that time and I just don't see how the...
As @AugustusFerdinand pointed out, Roe has been around already for 49 years. The media landscape and social media is a completely foreign thing compared to that time and I just don't see how the anti-abortion ideology stands a chance in this climate. It was a lot easier to keep those types of people riled up when they could play attack, but now they are permanently on the defense and every terrible outcome that results from this ruling will be slammed back in their faces. Same thing if the Supreme Court goes after other rights such as contraceptive and gay rights.
This is probably a bold take, but I would honestly bet on a huge swell of liberal support over the next 12 years resulting in Constitutional amendments that permanently codify these rights into law and likely result in Supreme Court reform. The minority in this country has been on the attack and barely scraped these together these "wins" for them. Now that the majority is on the attack and no longer playing defense, these people won't be able to hold their ground.
Josh Hawley says abortion ruling will push people to move states, strengthening the GOP He predicted that people will base where they live on whether abortion is allowed and that the decision will...
He predicted that people will base where they live on whether abortion is allowed and that the decision will end up redrawing demographic lines across the country.
“I would predict that the effect is going to be that more and more red states are going to become more red, purple states are going to become red and the blue states are going to get a lot bluer,” Hawley said. “And I would look for Republicans as a result of this to extend their strength in the Electoral College. And that’s very good news.”
If that holds true, I don't see any way the country actually remains as one. If states that foot the bill for deep red states like CA and NY become a very small minority, at some point they're...
If that holds true, I don't see any way the country actually remains as one. If states that foot the bill for deep red states like CA and NY become a very small minority, at some point they're just going to stop giving money to the federal government. I know I would be fed up living under minority rule, while also paying for the minority to rule me. I'm not sure what happens from there, but I don't see it going well.
He’s probably right in the short term but I think there are limits to going all-in on entrenched minority rule in a country, especially an ostensibly democratic one, that Rs will run into.
He’s probably right in the short term but I think there are limits to going all-in on entrenched minority rule in a country, especially an ostensibly democratic one, that Rs will run into.
Ways you can help if you can't protest (for whatever reason): Donate to abortion funds Donate to bail funds (don't have a good link for this yet) Call your representatives (if you live in the US)
Ways you can help if you can't protest (for whatever reason):
Lower-risk protest ideas: Carry around large signs whenever you find yourself on a sidewalk or park. Protests don't need to be mass gatherings, easier if they are not. Protest while your kid plays...
Lower-risk protest ideas:
Carry around large signs whenever you find yourself on a sidewalk or park. Protests don't need to be mass gatherings, easier if they are not. Protest while your kid plays at the park instead of tweeting. Most states can't ban you from peacefully protesting on your own in public spaces.
Rather than call your representative, show up at their campaign office and/or official government office in your area. Tell them, or their staff, why it's important to you...personally if you can.
Join the Satanic Temple. They are a legally recognized tax-exempt church with religious access to abortion and contraceptives baked in.
Good ideas, thanks! I personally can't really do the first two because of COVID risk, but hopefully people who are out and about more can be inspired. (And everyone, please wear masks, even at...
Good ideas, thanks! I personally can't really do the first two because of COVID risk, but hopefully people who are out and about more can be inspired.
(And everyone, please wear masks, even at protests - outdoor transmission is very much possible, especially in large crowds. N95s or KN95s are best. Or if you want to protect against tear gas, too, check out resources on whether p100 respirators will do the job safely.)
It seems like materially helping women in trouble, or at least funding the people who do it, beats protesting? Yes, there are inevitably protests, but I don't understand what they're supposed to...
It seems like materially helping women in trouble, or at least funding the people who do it, beats protesting? Yes, there are inevitably protests, but I don't understand what they're supposed to accomplish in response to a Supreme Court ruling.
Helping people access abortion is definitely important - I donated to abortion funds even before this ruling because this is just the final nail in the coffin after years of increasingly punitive...
Helping people access abortion is definitely important - I donated to abortion funds even before this ruling because this is just the final nail in the coffin after years of increasingly punitive "regulation." But I wouldn't say it is more or less important than protesting, because they're doing different things.
Protests create pressure on people in charge, help strengthen solidarity and commitment within movements, keep an issue alive in the news cycle, and show how many people care about the issue in a way that's much more visible than the results of a poll or an election. (Just some examples off the top of my head - I'm sure there's some good research into the effects of protests.)
Effective protests hurt the wealthy and powerful in a meaningful and lasting way while making their demands clear, so that the wealthy and powerful change the status quo to avoid getting further hurt.
Effective protests hurt the wealthy and powerful in a meaningful and lasting way while making their demands clear, so that the wealthy and powerful change the status quo to avoid getting further hurt.
When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.
Swaying the opinion of the wealthy would likely do more than trying to sway politicians directly.
Well, they might, for instance, donate to different politicians, since that's a huge factor in elections, or ask the politicians they already donate to to change their votes, or pay for lobbyists,...
Well, they might, for instance, donate to different politicians, since that's a huge factor in elections, or ask the politicians they already donate to to change their votes, or pay for lobbyists, or personally fund abortion clinics, or do any one of a million other things that their money and power make possible.
Pretty sad that even "pro-life” supreme court justices don’t seem to understand the life/death of an unborn fetus is not and should not be the focal point of the ruling, for very obvious reasons.
What sharply distinguishes the abortion right to decline forced organ transplant from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: AbortionDeclining a mandated organ transplant is different because it destroys what Roe termed “potential life” and what the law challenged in this case calls an “unborn human being.” None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortionopting out of mandated organ transplants. Accordingly, those cases do not support the right to obtain an abortiondeny an organ transplant request , and the Court’s conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way.
Pretty sad that even "pro-life” supreme court justices don’t seem to understand the life/death of an unborn fetus is not and should not be the focal point of the ruling, for very obvious reasons.
What do you do when a country is so split on this issue? Fifty years of pro-choice arguments failed to convince the opposition. Maybe letting individual states to deal with it as they see fit is...
What do you do when a country is so split on this issue? Fifty years of pro-choice arguments failed to convince the opposition. Maybe letting individual states to deal with it as they see fit is the compromise worth having...
It's not really all that split though. And the number of people with absolutist pro-life/anti-abortion opinions has actually dropped even further due to this decision....
It's not really all that split though. And the number of people with absolutist pro-life/anti-abortion opinions has actually dropped even further due to this decision. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
IMO, this decision is just a hardcore religious minority in its death throes making a last ditch attempt to take control before their falling numbers finally render them insignificant, in order to force their religious beliefs on everyone else. And I guarantee you that if they're acquiesced to this will only be the beginning, and pretty soon all sorts of other equally "split" (but not really) issues will be decided by individual States too, allowing them to make contraception and gay marriage illegal, or even criminalize consensual acts between same sex couples again. Would you be fine with any of that being allowed to happen in certain States too? Because Clarence Thomas has already made it clear that he believes those should be next on the chopping block.
The solution is that individuals deal with it as they see fit. Think abortion is immoral? Don't get one. Want an abortion? Get one. A compromise that takes away the rights of millions of people...
The solution is that individuals deal with it as they see fit. Think abortion is immoral? Don't get one. Want an abortion? Get one.
A compromise that takes away the rights of millions of people simply based on what state they live in isn't a compromise. Especially for people with no resources to move.
Adding on to your point, I don't understand how letting states decide resolves the moral question. Different parts of the country restrict guns differently, but I don't consider that a moral...
Adding on to your point, I don't understand how letting states decide resolves the moral question. Different parts of the country restrict guns differently, but I don't consider that a moral question – it's more like a practical question for how to deal with gun violence. Obviously philosophies diverge greatly, but at least everyone agrees that murder is wrong.
In contrast, either abortion is murder or it's not; certainly it's not fine in California but murder in Alabama. Instead of letting individuals decide where human life begins – a thorny ethical question with no consensus – we'll have a tyranny of the majority/minority imposing their moral (and frankly, religious) beliefs on the rest of us.
These are the 13 states with trigger laws that are expected to go into effect
Worth mentioning that here in Wisconsin we're most of the way there. There's an ancient law on the books which seems like a toss up if it'll be enforceable but until that's settled abortion providers are stopping dead in their tracks.
And all the Republican gubernatorial candidates want to ban all abortions.
Wonder if South Beloit will open an abortion center right next to Sunnyside
I'm not sure why Alabama keeps getting let off in these articles talking about existing bans or trigger laws. Alabama has a 2019 law that had an injunction against it which was immediately lifted, completely banning abortion except for cases where the life of the mother is in danger.
This is an excellent summary, thank you.
I was conceived in 1973, the year Roe was decided. I was conceived through sexual assault. I was conceived by an underage girl. My mother was kicked out of her home due to this, and when she gave birth, she gave me up for adoption because a homeless teenager has no capacity to raise a child. I mention all of this because if there was ever a poster child for abortion, I was it.
The fact that she didn't abort is completely and utterly irrelevant. I don't even care that my existence is due to her not getting one. Women's health and reproduction is theirs and theirs alone. No one has the right to tell a woman that she has to deliver a child she does not want. I don't care if it's conceived through sexual assault, carelessness, incest, or a loving relationship, those are all red herrings. Her body is hers alone.
That in multiple states, a woman can be denied the ability to end a life threatening pregnancy is appalling in a developed country in the 21st century.
I'm sure that most people here have already seen this by now, but for anyone who isn't following this or isn't familiar with American politics, Justice Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a shot across the bow regarding contraceptive rights, queer intimacy, and gay marriage.
Griswold allowed access to contraceptives.
Lawrence allowed consensual sexual activity, particularly for queer couples.
Obergefell allowed same-sex marriages (and, personally speaking, is the ruling that enabled my husband and I to marry one another, as well as to have our marriage recognized federally and by other states we travel to).
Thomas is telegraphing future attacks here. His words are not hollow. They are foreshadowing.
And just to be clear, the "due process" he's talking about are clauses in the fifth and fourteenth amendments
from the fifth: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
The text of the fourteenth is pretty similar. Most people can see the issue here; the clauses are extremely vague. What does "life" mean? What does "liberty" mean? What does "property" and "Due process of law" mean. Hell, what does "Person" mean?
That's part of the reason why these court decisions are so controversial among constitutional law scholars, even ignoring their status as hot button "culture war" type issues (but maybe that may even be part of the reason why they're controversial from that aspect as well).
The constitution is very vague around what any of those terms mean, so it's up to judges to determine; it's basically left up to their personal whims. The original argument for roe is that the fourteenth amendment, via the due process clause, provided a fundamental "right to privacy" (despite the amendment not actually saying that explicitly) and because of that right to privacy, a woman has the ability to determine what happens with her own body. It's a bodily integrity argument that has nothing to do with when life begins or anything like that.
From a moral standpoint, its a strong argument, but from a constitutional law standpoint, it's a pretty shaky one. You're arguing that an implied (but never stated) right to privacy exists based on a due process clause, which then (again) implies the right to body integrity in the case of a pregnancy.
Essentially, while you can say the decision today is morally wrong (and it is), it's hard to make the argument that it's constitutionally wrong, because the original decision was already on such shaky ground.
This has, for the last 40 years, been a guillotine hanging over the neck of reproductive rights. Without a constitutional amendment explicitly guaranteeing bodily integrity and all that implies, any SCOTUS who is either A. a conservative morally opposed to abortion, or B. a black and white originalist who will automatically shut down any tenuous interpretation of constitutional text was going to reverse roe. It was really just a matter of time.
Until we can get this enshrined in the constitution (fat chance at any point in our lifetimes; the constitutional amendment process is heavily biased towards conservatives, demographics-wise), this will always just be at the whim of whoever the sitting SCOTUS justices are, unfortunately.
i'm fairly certain that either in grisworld or in roe's decision there was a line that literally said "if you squint your eyes...at the ninth amendment" and then "there is a penumbra of a right to privacy." not exactly the strongest of constitutional arguments.
what the US needs the most is an amendment to make amendments easier to pass. not easy, but easier such that it is possible. that way the unelected and unaccountable SCOTUS will or at least could hopefully be once again seen as a neutral interpreter of the law as they won't be the only path to essentially MAKE certain laws anymore.
Hogwash. The interpretation of there being a penumbra of rights was solid enough to have established 50 years of precedent and sustained across multiple challenges. It was only overturned on utterly flimsy logic than even laypeople find holes they can poke through. The original Roe ruling only had two dissents. The American legal system doesn’t just operate on the black letter interpretation of the text of the constitution with no other considerations. Precedent and case law matter.
the decision was the morally sound thing to do but it was essentially inventing law.
doesn't mean it was actually valid. casey v planned parenthood 20 years later basically completely threw out the roe reasoning and tried to come up with its own constitutional basis (and again failed).
otoh overturning a 50 year old precedent is also essentially unheard of and the fact the judges made comparisons to the overturning of plessy is disgusting.
they are right roe was unsound, but they were wrong it should be overturned both morally and practically
No the intent behind the due process clause is pretty clear and the only reason it is approached as controversial is because conservatives want to engage in motivated reasoning to strike it down.
The only valid contention would have been to dismiss it as a “political question,” which the dissent didn’t do. Asserting that states have a positive right to interfere in people’s bodies without any compelling social interest is no less “inventing law” and I see no compelling argument for why we should assume states have unlimited authority over the people living in them when the constitution pretty explicitly states the opposite.
Which is why Rehnquist’s dissent doesn’t bother with contesting the interpretation of the due process clause. He focuses on issues of standing and whether regulation of a medical procedure can be construed as “private.”
this is really an argument about textualism/originalism vs original intent vs a living constitution interpretation and the scope of amendments. supreme court, being unelected, should take a textual approach. it is up to the lawmakers to write better laws.
And the problem is that since Roe v Wade, conservatives have been intentionally packing originalists into the court, because they disliked losing the living-document arguements with a changing society.
An originalist would argue computer files are not constitutionally protected 'papers,' because computers were not invented yet and thus the founders could not have accounted for it.
This is obviously insane nonsense, the kind of delusion perpetuated when your agenda overrides logic.
Originalism treats the founding fathers as infallible, the way religions usually do gods.
And worse yet, originalists pretend to be oracles who can divine the founding father's intentions, despite history being subject to interpretation and the founding fathers all having had different perspectives on the Constitution.
The obsession with "our history and traditions" leads to absurd rulings like this one, where evidently we must be more deferential to what people thought about abortion in the 1600s than the 2000s.
Not really, that's kind of a misunderstanding with the justifications for originalism. Originalists recognize that the founding fathers aren't infallible, which is why there's an amendment process. The problem with strict living constitution adherents is that the process is inherently undemocratic. When you have lifetime unelected appointees determining what should and shouldn't be allowed with literally zero oversight, you go from having a society where the legislature is in theory accountable to its constituents, to a society where the de-facto legislature are a bunch of old people with lifetime terms and no recourse against them.
I think both schools of thought have their merits, but it's not as simple as saying "originalism is bad". There's a reason why the legislature exists, after all.
You’re making an argument for why they shouldn’t be a lifetime appointment, not an argument for originalism which, again, is an unworkable and nonsensical legal doctrine that even its adherents don’t actually believe.
There is no argument. Textualism is a garbage legal doctrine that was made out of whole cloth by reactionary psychos solely to create a framework to support their motivated reasoning to roll back the progress made after reconstruction and the new deal. You just need to read the utter tripe being put out by self-styled textualists, like Alito, to realize this. It has as much practical and intellectual validity as the doctrine of nullification that the previous generation of reactionary psychopaths tried to push.
That’s why they totally ignore it any time it’s inconvenient. It’s a canard.
that is true
that is a matter of opinion. i agree with @papasquat and many others that giving legislative power to 9 unelected lifetime appointees is terrible and that's why textualism is the way to go. the nature of the court system suggests that judges would be best making decisions with small-c conservatism.
Claiming the due process doctrine of the court for the past 50 years constitutes “legislation” is itself just begging the question on originalism. Like all arguments for originalism it relies on circular reasoning.
you're being intentionally obtuse and it is impossible to argue productively i am going to stop responding.
many of the recent decisions of the court have been effectively judge-made law. like a right to privacy. nothing in the 5th, 14th, or 9th amendment suggest a general right to privacy. if the lawmakers wanted it, they should have put it down in writing as that's all we have to work with.
if you disagree, that is ok, but don't pretend like it's the only correct perspective.
fwiw i believe the "fundamental right to own a gun" is also an invention of the court (it is essentially scalia's little legislative baby) and also how the first amendment has been misconstrued to protect money as speech.
That’s not legislation. You seem to fundamentally not understand how the common law tradition works. Calling it legislation is just begging the question on an originalism talking point.
the US explicitly chose to depart from a common-law system for the exact reasons I've argued. that's part of why we have a written constitution.
in theory only the civil/contract law court system should be common law
Now you're just making up history to suit your argument, another hallmark of originalist thought. The US has not "departed from a common law system." At most the federal courts have said there isn't a general federal common law and they defer to state statutes when issuing rulings. Judging establishing law through precedent is fundamental to how the American system works. It betrays having absolutely no understanding of how laws are made to assume that lawyers in Congress can sort out every technicality by statute, which is why literally no country in the world does this. It's absurd and impracticable, and even originalists know this to be true, which is why they ignore 'originalism' or just make up history to suit their idea of what the Framers would have wanted any time things turn out in ways they don't like. If this was actually a sincere belief among originalists, they'd be studying history instead of law, because historians have different methods of interrogating sources than lawyers do. But it's not a sincere approach to legal analysis, it's a reactionary reflex.
from wikipedia:
"In 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), overruled earlier precedent,[134] and held "There is no federal general common law," thus confining the federal courts to act only as interstitial interpreters of law originating elsewhere. E.g., Texas Industries v. Radcliff, 451 U.S. 630 (1981) (without an express grant of statutory authority, federal courts cannot create rules of intuitive justice, for example, a right to contribution from co-conspirators). Post-1938, federal courts deciding issues that arise under state law are required to defer to state court interpretations of state statutes, or reason what a state's highest court would rule if presented with the issue, or to certify the question to the state's highest court for resolution.
Later courts have limited Erie slightly, to create a few situations where United States federal courts are permitted to create federal common law rules without express statutory authority, for example, where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests, such as foreign affairs, or financial instruments issued by the federal government. See, e.g., Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943) (giving federal courts the authority to fashion common law rules with respect to issues of federal power, in this case negotiable instruments backed by the federal government); see also International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) (creating a cause of action for misappropriation of "hot news" that lacks any statutory grounding); but see National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841, 843–44, 853 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting continued vitality of INS "hot news" tort under New York state law, but leaving open the question of whether it survives under federal law). Except on Constitutional issues, Congress is free to legislatively overrule federal courts' common law.[135]"
there are common-law elements, like precedent, and as you said those are necessary as a practical means. but the US federal court system wouldn't be best characterized as a common-law system
I already addressed this with this:
That's not saying it's not a common law system anymore, it's saying there isn't a universal federal one and they defer to state level common laws in rulings instead. It's not saying, as you suggest, that the US court system is restricted only to the strict statutory text.
Roe was in place for 49 years as precedent. It's bullshit that SCOTUS thinks they should get to overturn that for "states' rights" (while not letting states' rights determine concealed carry...), but at the same time there were 22 years where Dems had control of all of Congress and could have passed a law to enshrine it instead of relying on precedent. A precedent they knew the right wing was coming for.
SCOTUS is bullshit, but legally speaking your argument isn't great.
The court has precedent to overthrow precedent, such as segregation. Roe vs Wade was based on the right to privacy, which was always a weak argument.
What is bullshit is the clear partisan lean of the supreme court, based largely on presidents who lost the popular vote. There are significantly weaker arguments that the conservative court is happy to leave standing as they benefit one political party, such as Citizens United, Bush v Gore etc...
The supreme court biggest bullshit ruling this year was overruling state courts interpretation of state constitutions and simply saying let the illegal gerrymandered district lines remain, effectively allowing states lawmakers to gerrymander as they see fit.
This is on top of a ruling that nullifies federal lawmakers ability to protect voting rights. Because they ruled the Voting Rights Act no longer applies to any jurisdictions. Effectively allowing states lawmakers to overrule federal lawmakers when it comes to federal voting rights.
It's a naked power grab by lifetime appointees.
And it means all unpopular & harmful state laws have no hope of being over ruled by any oversight, for as long as they continue to benefit one political party.
Ignoring Bush Jr, a twice impeached, one-term president who lost the popular vote twice got 3 SCOTUS picks, and it will fuck us good for the next 50 years. But thank god we didn't have to deal with that evil woman and her email server.
Yeah, it's a bit of a stretch and always has been, and it's always highlighted a pretty huge gap in the US constitution. There's nothing in the body or amendments that guarantees bodily integrity. The fourth, and parts of the fourteenth have been interpreted that way, but there's nothing explicitly in the text that's guarantees it. It's a huge oversight that has caused a ton of issues in my opinion.
Fundamentally, I don't think that the government, or any other person has the right to force an adult to do something (or not do something) that primarily affects their own bodies. That includes abortions, but also things like wearing a helmet on a bicycle, whether they want to take drugs (recreational or therapeutic; like vaccines), organ donation, blood and urine tests, euthanasia and assisted suicide, force feeding, and probably dozens of other issues I'm not even thinking of.
It really, really upsets me that in 2022, we still think we have the right to control other people's bodies. A constitutional amendment unequivocally enshrining the absolute rights of people to their own bodies seems like a complete moral no brainer to me.
Both Madison and Hamilton’s biggest fear about inclusion of the Bill of Rights was that it would be construed to mean these were the only rights to which people were entitled. In their minds, the constitutional system of checks and balances was the actual, practical guarantor of people’s rights. Not the set of rules attached on the back end of it.
Saying that rights have to be explicitly codified in the document to count is ceding the argument to originalism cranks. This interpretation was not part of the American legal tradition until some neoconfederate reactionaries decided they had to manufacture some post hoc nonsense to justify rolling back all of social progress since the 14th amendment was signed.
I can comfortably say that our country, in its current form, will never amend its constitution again. In my opinion we’re a few decades out from a collapse of the federal government. Maybe a few years out from a successful coup. I’d recommend moving to a sane, wealthy state or leaving the country before then.
I agree with minimal laws surrounding bodily autonomy. In a sane world, we shouldn't need any laws about bodily autonomy (for or against) because it would be the underlying foundation of literally everything. Sadly, we do not currently live in this world.
Not having helmet laws will kill off a lot of idiots real quick. I've decided I'm ok with that.
Source: I am only alive today because I was wearing a helmet a week ago when I hit a bad bump on my bike and fell off it. I was going about 8 mph, landed on my knee and head at same time. Got 8 stitches in my chin after profusely bleeding everywhere. It still hurts to walk (will probably need a bit of physical therapy), but thanks to the deadening crack from my helmet, my brain wasn't injured at all. Our bodies are surprisingly resiliant. Except for our brains. Wear a goddamn helmet people.
There was never a pro-choice majority in the Senate until 2018 at least. And there still isn't a supermajority to break the filibuster. People need to figure out that American political parties do not have the power to meaningfully whip votes. If the caucus has holdouts the only remedy is to bribe them with pork to look the other way.
I agree with the overall sentiment here but at the same time, there are other options. For every carrot, there is a stick. I think at this point in American politics, there are plenty of people on the left who would like to see the stick in action, even if that disrupts the civility that Democrats seem to hold so dearly.
I’d love to hear what stick people think any Democratic Party leader could credibly wield to get the hold outs in their caucus in line. If the fact that their failure to break the filibuster to get voting rights passed will almost guarantee their own removal from the majority in the next election doesn’t move them what will?
The holdouts clearly don't care about anything other than their own interests, so going after their power is probably a good place to start. Not that I think it would make much of a difference, but at the very least it might be nice to hear Biden or some other high-ranking Democrats say something along the lines of, "Hey, maybe Joe Manchin shouldn't have his committee positions." Or, "Kyrsten Sinema should face a tough primary when she's up for reelection." Of course, they could go a hell of a lot further and do something like investigate Manchin for his shady ties to the coal industry, but hey, let's not get too carried away.
If you want a good example of the stick in action, look to the other side of the aisle. There, you have Republicans nuking Liz Cheney for refusing to support the fraudulent election lie and condemning Trump in the wake of Jan 6th. Meanwhile, Manchin and Sinema can tank the entire Democratic platform and Democrats basically shrug their shoulders. That's the part that is so frustrating and deflating, in my opinion. If you're going to fail, at least show people you are fighting tooth and nail for your agenda.
There's a bit more to Sinema for that, but honestly that sounds like the worst thing you can do from a big D strategical point of view. Manchin is an election miracle maker - that's just the reality. He's a democratic senator from the 2nd most Republican State in the US. West Virginia went +40 points to Trump in 2020. Plus FORTY.
F-O-R-T-Y
It seems infinitely better to try and get another senate seat in one of the many, many purple background states so that Manchin isn't the deciding vote, as opposed to rocking the boat in the state where there's a FIFTY point delta between the Presidential and Senate seat and that makes up your tenuous 50/50 "majority".
Manchin is a billion percent better than whatever hellspawn would normally come out of a +40 R state, and no party line democrat has anything near a chance. No, that's not an "excuse" for his behavior - he is what he is, a relatively conservative politician. It's the reality that it's way better to have him than not from a strategic point of view.
Yes, that works in the abstract. But that takes 4 months, 6 before it takes effect. And then 4 years later if that fails.
Manchin can do what most other conservatives do: Lie to their base to get elected. Then do whatever they want, blame the other party when they catch flak.
Edit: Also, doesn't trying to sway purple states also result in this same level of wishy-washy "but you can't alienate the conservatives?"
I forget the source, but I recall studies that found the 'swing voter' is insignifcant, if they really exist at all. It's all about mobilizing nonvoters. Trump mobilized votes because he was a celebrity of sorts, just like Reagan. Conservatives mobilize voters with fear tactics to stir their base. Democrats mobilize voters by not being Republicans.
There's the gigantic swath of Independants that go unmobilized because they (somewhat accurately) see that the D/R battle doesn't really affect their day to day lives. Perhaps if Democrats were as effective at rolling back regressive policy or implementing progressive policy as Republicans are fewer people would feel that way.
Shame is one of the most powerful motivators there is. Biden should have been calling out the Republicans and other detractors by name. 'We don't have the votes to fix this' does not have the gravitas that 'We would have the votes if Senators X,Y,Z would support us.'
Unsure about Sinema, but Manchin will for sure change parties if he loses his committee positions. So it’s not a real threat for him.
The Republicans can stick it to Liz Cheney because they have a systemic advantage through Senate malapportionment and congressional gerrymandering that gives them a lot more room to screw around. They also have a voter base whose brains have been turned to mush by propaganda outlets which creates a strong pressure to intensify their craziness. Meanwhile, the mainstream media is also rigged for conservative interests due to their reflexive tendency to both sides fascism.
This is the operational context Democratic leaders have to function in. And that’s independent of their own blinders owning to each being a million years old.
...not really. congress is generally only allowed to pass laws related to the powers enumerated in section 1 article 8. a very common enumerated power used to pass laws is the commerce clause, which after gonzales v raich (2005) essentially means any law can be passed. a law regulating state's power to control abortion would still likely be struck down as it falls under police power (regulating morality, health of citizens), which is understood to be left to the states. the only true legislative route was to pass an amendment...which was never going to happen.
Such a law might also have some dangerous implications. Namely, that if Congress could protect abortion rights across the nation, that implies that they can also outlaw it. A republican majority in the future could then, by that precedent, pass a law banning abortion protections across the US, even in the California's and New Yorks of the States.
That being said, you can argue that at least in that situation there's a clear mechanism for citizen feedback (e.g voting), and that Republicans may try such a thing precedent or not.
Yes. Elections have consequences.
Not true. The Federal government funds so many state development projects that simply adding contingencies to the funding has the effect of a rule. If they want to outlaw abortion they can say deal with the electoral fallout of having all their CMS and HHS funding pulled.
that is true but that isn't exactly very stable ground. what happens when republicans gain control of the govt. again and threaten the opposite? it worked for raising the drinking age because that was fairly bipartisan. it's a different story for abortion.
Laws are just social agreements about how to act collectively. There is no magic force that binds people to abide by rules when it inconveniences them, people just make a choice to do so. There was never "stable ground." It was fictitious. If sources of authority think they have legitimacy to do something fucked up, they will do the fucked up thing. The only thing that stops them is the political power of their opponents. Not rules. The power is what makes them abide by the rules not the other way around.
Like I said in a separate reply, elections have consequences. If we consistently elect people who have no respect for rule of law or individual rights or autonomy, the government will behave in ways that disregard those things. There is no set of rules that stops it but to stop electing unworthy people who hate us and want us immiserated or dead.
To steal from Moon is a Harsh Mistress:
A lawsuit would have to prove the law is unconstitutional. Roe's decision was made under the court's opinion that abortion is protected by the constitution, this court disagrees.
One group says abortion is protected by the Constitution another group says it's not. The group in power at the time gets to decide and this group said that abortion isn't in the Constitution so obviously it's not protected by it.
If a law is passed then the fight is reversed, so the group that is pushing to say "abortion is not in the Constitution" has to instead prove that abortion is unconstitutional. Which is a higher bar to pass as "I don't like this law" doesn't equal "unconstitutional."
Yeah it'd be something that'd be hard to call one way or the other. Basically, the argument would be whether it falls under the Commerce Clause (used as the conduit for the Civil Rights Act, for instance) or Police Powers
which are solidly for the states to decide.
I think it'd be also be possible that the court not hear any cases on such a hypothetical law for a few years, to avoid bumping the beehive.
In any case, it's probably something worth platforming on, given the midterms.
Everything with the Supreme Court and power and legitimacy is very complicated. The Supreme Court is extremely under-defined in the constitution.
Their main power to do things like this is Judicial Review... which isn't even in the Constitution, it's just implied by the Constitution, and then Marbury v. Madison happened and no one said everything.
In some sense, what you're saying is true - they can just say that abortion is under police power => state's to decide. But de facto the SC does need to watch itself, because Congress is given the ultimate power from the Constitution, and can legislate the judicial branch to oblivion if they so wish. Even Judicial Review isn't a codified part of the US government.
So it's always this dance between the Court and Congress, because at some point if they're just straight up rejecting Congressional laws passed with the mandate of the people for bogus reasons, the mandate of the people will then be to nullify the Congress (lots of mechanisms for this, e.g court packing). In effect, the Supreme Court needs to rule in a way that is at least acceptable enough to the public to avoid the public destroying them through the legislative branch.
This almost happened with FDR, but in the end public backlash caused FDR to cease his court packing attempt, and the fright from the possibility of court packing got the SC to stop nullifying New Deal packages.
We are all just so fucked. This country is a hellscape nightmare right now.
I feel so bad for all the younger generations to come that will have to spend their lives undoing the terrible things their parents did.
My child, when learning that our garden would produce more food than we would be able to eat, replied with:
"Oh, so we'll just give it away to anyone who wants it"
Never been so proud. It's not a lost cause till we give up.
As a Texan, I’m flying a big American flag in distress in the most visible spot of my rather-prominent yard today.
Fully expect slashed tires or a brick through the window, but worth.
Not surprising based on the leaked opinion, but still disappointing that so many states are going to outlaw abortion in all cases. The suffering this is going to lead to for so many people (both alive now, and those not yet born) over the next couple decades is going to be huge.
Ironic. Those unborn potentials they’ve fought for have no right to control their bodies.
In related news, today the Supreme Court overturned New York's century-old concealed carry law. All other concealed carry laws in several other states died with it.
Seems like while women can't have an abortion, they can carry an assortment of firearms in their purse. 'tis a strange world.
If you get pregnant, just shoot yourself in the stomach. See, guns solve unwanted pregnancies too! /s
As @AugustusFerdinand pointed out, Roe has been around already for 49 years. The media landscape and social media is a completely foreign thing compared to that time and I just don't see how the anti-abortion ideology stands a chance in this climate. It was a lot easier to keep those types of people riled up when they could play attack, but now they are permanently on the defense and every terrible outcome that results from this ruling will be slammed back in their faces. Same thing if the Supreme Court goes after other rights such as contraceptive and gay rights.
This is probably a bold take, but I would honestly bet on a huge swell of liberal support over the next 12 years resulting in Constitutional amendments that permanently codify these rights into law and likely result in Supreme Court reform. The minority in this country has been on the attack and barely scraped these together these "wins" for them. Now that the majority is on the attack and no longer playing defense, these people won't be able to hold their ground.
Josh Hawley says abortion ruling will push people to move states, strengthening the GOP
He predicted that people will base where they live on whether abortion is allowed and that the decision will end up redrawing demographic lines across the country.
“I would predict that the effect is going to be that more and more red states are going to become more red, purple states are going to become red and the blue states are going to get a lot bluer,” Hawley said. “And I would look for Republicans as a result of this to extend their strength in the Electoral College. And that’s very good news.”
If that holds true, I don't see any way the country actually remains as one. If states that foot the bill for deep red states like CA and NY become a very small minority, at some point they're just going to stop giving money to the federal government. I know I would be fed up living under minority rule, while also paying for the minority to rule me. I'm not sure what happens from there, but I don't see it going well.
No taxation without representation.
He’s probably right in the short term but I think there are limits to going all-in on entrenched minority rule in a country, especially an ostensibly democratic one, that Rs will run into.
Ways you can help if you can't protest (for whatever reason):
Lower-risk protest ideas:
Carry around large signs whenever you find yourself on a sidewalk or park. Protests don't need to be mass gatherings, easier if they are not. Protest while your kid plays at the park instead of tweeting. Most states can't ban you from peacefully protesting on your own in public spaces.
Rather than call your representative, show up at their campaign office and/or official government office in your area. Tell them, or their staff, why it's important to you...personally if you can.
Join the Satanic Temple. They are a legally recognized tax-exempt church with religious access to abortion and contraceptives baked in.
Good ideas, thanks! I personally can't really do the first two because of COVID risk, but hopefully people who are out and about more can be inspired.
(And everyone, please wear masks, even at protests - outdoor transmission is very much possible, especially in large crowds. N95s or KN95s are best. Or if you want to protect against tear gas, too, check out resources on whether p100 respirators will do the job safely.)
It seems like materially helping women in trouble, or at least funding the people who do it, beats protesting? Yes, there are inevitably protests, but I don't understand what they're supposed to accomplish in response to a Supreme Court ruling.
Helping people access abortion is definitely important - I donated to abortion funds even before this ruling because this is just the final nail in the coffin after years of increasingly punitive "regulation." But I wouldn't say it is more or less important than protesting, because they're doing different things.
Protests create pressure on people in charge, help strengthen solidarity and commitment within movements, keep an issue alive in the news cycle, and show how many people care about the issue in a way that's much more visible than the results of a poll or an election. (Just some examples off the top of my head - I'm sure there's some good research into the effects of protests.)
Effective protests hurt the wealthy and powerful in a meaningful and lasting way while making their demands clear, so that the wealthy and powerful change the status quo to avoid getting further hurt.
That's rather vague. what would the wealthy do, exactly?
It didn't seem to work out so well for Disney in Florida.
Because we live in an oligarchy of sorts.
Swaying the opinion of the wealthy would likely do more than trying to sway politicians directly.
Well, they might, for instance, donate to different politicians, since that's a huge factor in elections, or ask the politicians they already donate to to change their votes, or pay for lobbyists, or personally fund abortion clinics, or do any one of a million other things that their money and power make possible.
Pretty sad that even "pro-life” supreme court justices don’t seem to understand the life/death of an unborn fetus is not and should not be the focal point of the ruling, for very obvious reasons.
What do you do when a country is so split on this issue? Fifty years of pro-choice arguments failed to convince the opposition. Maybe letting individual states to deal with it as they see fit is the compromise worth having...
It's not really all that split though. And the number of people with absolutist pro-life/anti-abortion opinions has actually dropped even further due to this decision. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
IMO, this decision is just a hardcore religious minority in its death throes making a last ditch attempt to take control before their falling numbers finally render them insignificant, in order to force their religious beliefs on everyone else. And I guarantee you that if they're acquiesced to this will only be the beginning, and pretty soon all sorts of other equally "split" (but not really) issues will be decided by individual States too, allowing them to make contraception and gay marriage illegal, or even criminalize consensual acts between same sex couples again. Would you be fine with any of that being allowed to happen in certain States too? Because Clarence Thomas has already made it clear that he believes those should be next on the chopping block.
The solution is that individuals deal with it as they see fit. Think abortion is immoral? Don't get one. Want an abortion? Get one.
A compromise that takes away the rights of millions of people simply based on what state they live in isn't a compromise. Especially for people with no resources to move.
Adding on to your point, I don't understand how letting states decide resolves the moral question. Different parts of the country restrict guns differently, but I don't consider that a moral question – it's more like a practical question for how to deal with gun violence. Obviously philosophies diverge greatly, but at least everyone agrees that murder is wrong.
In contrast, either abortion is murder or it's not; certainly it's not fine in California but murder in Alabama. Instead of letting individuals decide where human life begins – a thorny ethical question with no consensus – we'll have a tyranny of the majority/minority imposing their moral (and frankly, religious) beliefs on the rest of us.
Roe was the compromise, not Dobbs.