Here
and
Now

opinions

Roe ruling shows complex relationship between court, public

16 Comments
By HANNAH FINGERHUT

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.


16 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

What the SCOTUS did was remove the national abortion right and left it up to the states. Some states will try to be as restrictive as possible and others will still have restrictions, but become more open, since the SC isn't mandating things.

A few of the "trigger laws" passed years ago by mostly southern states to immediately make abortions illegal are being challenged in court already. The Louisiana law for that has been stayed by a judge there because it was too restrictive and didn't allow current voters the right to choose. Florida is also being challenged, since they have a State Constitution that makes abortion a privacy right.

Prior Florida Supreme Court decisions that extend the privacy right to abortion.

While I think that abortion should be on-demand, without any restrictions before the fetus is viable outside the body, I could easily agree to restrictions after 24 weeks, when the brain is just becoming coherent enough for consciousness according to science. I'd also have allowances for rape and incest.

Anyone heard the song by Meatloaf - "Paradise By The Dashboard Light"? That's what happens for nearly everyone under age 30. Expecting youngsters to change is like asking yourself to hold your breath for 6 minutes. They need better answers than "don't have sex." Obviously, that doesn't work. Many of the states with the most restrictions on abortions also have mandated parental notification. This will just delay and delay the choice until it isn't viable.

This fall, I have 3 goals in my voting.

Remove the liars.

Remove the people who restricted voting in my state.

Remove anyone who doesn't recognize that a woman and her doctor need to make medical decisions together, not old people who don't have to live with the consequences. The world is different from 40-60 yrs ago the last time those people had sex.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

The Supreme Court ruling to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision is unpopular with a majority of Americans — but did that matter?

The original decision was also unpopular. But it is not up to the public to decide interpretation of the constitution. That is the job of the Supreme Court.

Now, the issue of abortion and the responsibility of promulgating laws that govern that matter will be up to the states and the popularly elected officials.

This is just part of the US legal system, and Americans just have to accept it, just as they have to accept the laws of the states. The same function exists in every other advanced Western nation.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I think in the fullness of history overturning Roe is going to turn out a lot like Dred Scott v Sandford and Plessy V Ferguson, SCOTUS opinions that we now understand to have been both shameful and having lead to much unnecessary suffering and bloodshed. However it is unfortunately going to take a lot of time and more human misery for this fact to be fully revealed. It has also opened a line of thought that could lead to the repeal of other long held rights. There are implications for social instability in this ruling.

One glimmer of hope is that most states have an initiative process to allow voters to decide laws directly through the ballot. I expect a number of states will soon have ballot initiatives to either codify the right to an abortion or to overturn existing restrictive laws.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

In the course of a single day a right of the people of the entire US suddenly became a crime in nearly half the states. Think about that for a while. And the people had no say in this, and a majority of Americans are opposed to this change. I think this will turn out to be a pyrrhic "victory" for the evangelicals.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

In the final opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the court “cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work.”

That is exactly the type of justice America needs.

Desert TortoiseToday  08:07 am JST

In the course of a single day a right of the people of the entire US suddenly became a crime in nearly half the states. Think about that for a while. And the people had no say in this, and a majority of Americans are opposed to this change.

This is a good thing, and people definitely had a say in this, as the article reads:

Scholars point to judicial appointments and court legitimacy as potential ways that the public has indirect influence on the court.

For one, voters elect a president, who nominates justices, and senators, who confirm them.

“Over the longer run, assuming there’s kind of a reasonable rotation of the justices leaving office for whatever reason that aligns with the party’s historical alternation in power, the court can preserve its alignment with public opinion,” said Ura.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

There is also supposed to be a separation of church and state, but this ruling 100% reflects a biblical view and not a scientific one. The crux of the matter is that a court has taken away a woman's right to her own body, all because the Republican party seized on abortion as a political tool in the 80's and used it as a wedge issue to gain support for their campaigns.

Regan, the darling of the Republican party, famously created some of the most liberal laws on abortion rights in CA. It was only in the early 80's that abortion became the contentious issue it is today, when evangelical Christians began to fund Republican campaigns to push their religious views

The supreme court has become a tool politicians use for re-election strategies - Trump was just the first politician to admit that out loud when he pledged to appoint judges to the court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. It was one of his main talking points to garner votes.

The court no longer has either respect or trust. Note that whenever a court decision comes down, there are cries of "legislating from the bench" from both sides of the aisle.

And if you think outlawing abortion is going to stop rich men from getting abortions for their wives and mistresses, think again. The only thing this has done is to force women to have children they don't want and can't take care of, so get ready.

Get ready for a huge wave of unwanted babies and a higher burden on the welfare system.

Get ready for women dying. Dying from illegal abortions, dying of preeclampsia and other complications because women with high health risks accidentally got pregnant, and dying of sepsis because they cannot abort the dying fetus in their womb.

Get ready for 14 year old girls having their father's or brother's children because of incest.

Get ready for women forced to give birth to their rapist's baby.

Get ready for women being put into prison for ending a pregnancy.

It's the Handmaid's Tale come true, and it's all because Republicans wanted to stay in power strongly enough that they were willing to take money from Christian extremists who want to force their personal religious views on the entire nation.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

girl_in_tokyoToday  09:26 am JST

There is also supposed to be a separation of church and state, but this ruling 100% reflects a biblical view and not a scientific one.

No, it represents a judicial one.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Abortion should be only legal for those who are at risk during pregnancy and even those who are victims of rape. Any other reasons than these should be considered murder. If you are against this rule then its simple, DONT GET PREGNANT!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

painkillerToday 09:28 am JST

No, it represents a judicial one.

That's completely disingenuous, and I think on some level you know that.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

DmanToday 12:51 pm JST

Abortion should be only legal for those who are at risk during pregnancy and even those who are victims of rape. Any other reasons than these should be considered murder. If you are against this rule then its simple, DONT GET PREGNANT!

I can see you have very strong feelings about what women should do with their own bodies.

Maybe consider that this is a product of patriarchal thinking, and learn to mind your own business.

Also, what makes it not murder if it's a rapist's baby? Or is it okay to murder some babies due to the circumstances under which they are conceived?

And, if it's okay to murder some babies due to the circumstances under which they are conceived, then is murder really wrong?

Your logic just really doesn't add up.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

These are troubling times for people who believe in social progress and advancement. Clarence Thomas is hellbent on destroying many hard fought rights and he has the backing of enough other conservatives justices to have a powerful and negative effect for many years. We are going back in time to the 50's.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I think the biggest damage here is that now Americans are unable to have confidence in their government, knowing that their fundamental rights may be removed at any given time.

Well, except the right to bear arms of course. That ain't ever going anywhere.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

StrangerlandToday  01:56 pm JST

I think the biggest damage here is that now Americans are unable to have confidence in their government, knowing that their fundamental rights may be removed at any given time.

Well, except the right to bear arms of course. That ain't ever going anywhere.

Since you are a non-US citizen trying to discuss government issues in the US, you are correct in that you "think" something here.

Of course, you do not "know".

For one, there is no fundamental right to have an abortion. Several states have laws banning abortion, which is not a constitutionally protected right, according to the Supreme Court.

The right to bear arms is a fundamental right, so your mentioning that matter along with abortion is completely off-topic and irrelevant, and shows lack of understanding of the US at its basic level.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Since you are a non-US citizen trying to discuss government issues in the US, you are correct in that you "think" something here.

And most of my thoughts are accurate and/or moral too. I have an extremely high success rate.

For one, there is no fundamental right to have an abortion.

There was until Friday.

But yeah, half your population, the women, are all wrong.

So when are you guys going to rename America to Gilead?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

girl_in_tokyoToday  01:38 pm JST

No, it represents a judicial one.

That's completely disingenuous, and I think on some level you know that.

It was decided by the Supreme Court, not the Vatican.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Nobody is talking about murdering babies. This is about aborting groups of cells, before there is a conscious brain - i.e. before it is a human. Claiming a clump of cells are a human being isn't science, it is emotion.

When people talk about violence on this issue, I can only remember threats and violence towards people using their rights in prior years. Usually, it was religious people doing harm to adults legally performing medical procedures. https://abcnews.go.com/US/violence-abortion-clinics-rose-2021-report/story?id=85556448 It was so bad that the US Justice department wanted it classified as terrorism.

Saying that someone can just travel to a different state to have an abortion isn't a viable option for many of the poorest Americans. Access to medical procedures needs to be easy, convenient and local. Or the Pro-Life people need to put their money where their beliefs are and pay for long-term contraception and commit to adopting all babies that mothers aren't able to raise for any reason.

Anyone else had 3+ of their posts on this topic purged from these recent stories?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites