world

Supreme Court's abortion ruling sets off new court fights

65 Comments
By KEVIN McGILL, AMY FORLITI and GEOFF MULVIHILL

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.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.


65 Comments

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

Next up, Gay Marriage, contraception and any other privacy right that we supposedly don’t have because the Demi-gods who were the “founding fathers” (genuflect, crosses oneself) DIDN'T happen to think of it 250 years ago.

But don’t take my word for it; ask Clarence “I DIDNT MENTION LOVING VS VA!” Thomas. He essentially invited challenges to these established rights.

One a side note: the DNC is asking where to mail their thank you letters to SCOTUS for putting both houses of Congress back in play....

7 ( +16 / -9 )

One a side note: the DNC is asking where to mail their thank you letters to SCOTUS for putting both houses of Congress back in play....

To some degree. But unfortunately, polling still shows that abortion is lower on Americans' priority lists than inflation and the economy.

Any women who voted from Trump, and are suddenly unable to get an abortion when they need one, will need to take a long look in the mirror.

4 ( +16 / -12 )

Stranger,

I have a hypothesis. Mine is that when women (and men who respect them) were polled, the idea of losing established rights was still, well, hypocritical. I mean SCOTUS COULDN’T be that stupid, right???

Now that it’s no longer a hypothetical situation, my hypothesis is that this issue will become more important.

5 ( +13 / -8 )

They talking about impeachment of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch for lying about Roe V Wade,the court has lost credibility,they are no more than political appointments,maybe the should past a law ,electing Supreme Court Justice,instead of appointment to the bench

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

It's a privacy issue between a woman/girl and her doctor, not a woman and the U.S. Supreme Court.

WTF are they doiing?!

7 ( +16 / -9 )

And while the law provides an exception for “medically futile” pregnancies in cases of fetuses with lethal abnormalities, the plaintiffs noted the law gives no definition of the term.

I hope the conservative political wing in the US are prepared for the long term medical care of children with severe disabilities. They are for comprehensive, affordable health insurance right?

This would be on top of the children born with severe economic disadvantages in the hyper unequal American late stage capitalist economy.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

In Friday's ruling, the Supreme Court left it to the states to decide whether to allow abortion.

This is a simple issue.

And the Sup. Ct. just applied legal rationale to clarify interpretation of the constitution.

Now it is up to the Staes to decide how to handle this matter.

So any outrage or whatever should be directed to the particular state if you do not agree with their law.

Nothing to protest here folks.

-4 ( +9 / -13 )

Next up, Gay Marriage, contraception and any other privacy right that we supposedly don’t have because the Demi-gods who were the “founding fathers” (genuflect, crosses oneself) DIDN'T happen to think of it 250 years ago.

No, just the issue of R v. W now finally being overturned will allow each state to vote on the issue and the SC decided to constitutionally allow “the people” to vote on the issue and take the Federal government (aka: big government) out of the picture.

But don’t take my word for it; ask Clarence “I DIDNT MENTION LOVING VS VA!” Thomas. He essentially invited challenges to these established rights.

That’s not going to happen because that would mean putting his own interracial marriage into question, relax…he’s not an idiot. 

One a side note: the DNC is asking where to mail their thank you letters to SCOTUS for putting both houses of Congress back in play....

Yeah, that’s not going to happen. Does it help the Dems, to a certain point, but it will never override the issues that are really hurting Americans like inflation (not Putin’s fault) rising gas prices (not Putin’s fault) food prices, the open border, crime (beyond out of control) those are the issues that are primarily on the minds of Americans, so the abortion gives the Dems a hiccup, but massively push the issue passed gas, food and crime, not a chance.

-8 ( +7 / -15 )

That’s not going to happen because that would mean putting his own interracial marriage into question, relax…he’s not an idiot. 

I would hope he would recuse himself from any case that seeks to overturn Loving.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

NemoToday  07:05 am JST

Next up, Gay Marriage, contraception and any other privacy right that we supposedly don’t have because the Demi-gods who were the “founding fathers” (genuflect, crosses oneself) DIDN'T happen to think of it 250 years ago.

If those matters were originally decided incorrectly, and were the product of judicial activism, then they should be decided correctly.

For now, we return finally to the original thinking of the "founding fathers" who did not conceive (hehe) of abortion being a part of the Due Process Clause.

And the issue is rightly given to the States to decide.

-12 ( +4 / -16 )

If those matters were originally decided incorrectly, and were the product of judicial activism, then they should be decided correctly.

For now, we return finally to the original thinking of the "founding fathers" who did not conceive (hehe) of abortion being a part of the Due Process Clause.

And the issue is rightly given to the States to decide.

I agree.

-12 ( +4 / -16 )

Painkiller - what do you think the Founding Fathers would have thought about interracial marriage back in the late 1700s?

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Just as it shouldn't be up to the states to determine whether a human being has property rights of another human being, it shouldn't be up to the states to force a woman to pregnancy. State politics has long become a battle ground for extremists' virtue signaling and they will stop at nothing to serve their evangelical base red meat now that nothing stops them.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

State politics has long become a battle ground for extremists' virtue signaling and they will stop at nothing to serve their evangelical base red meat now that nothing stops them.

Ok, so you think the Federal government should intervene, nullify the constitutional rights of the people and decide for them by taking their rights away?

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

During the Constitutional Convention, the delegation from GA was actually against a Bill of Rights. Their thinking was if only those rights were enumerated, then someday "Some fool" would think that citizens had ONLY those rights and no other.

Delegation from GA, meet SCOTUS (and their Rah-rah crowd on JT.)

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I don't really understand the logic behind banning abortion. If the real goal is to reduce the number of abortions there are so many more effective steps that could be taken -- support for poorer families, easy access to birth control, good sex education in schools, parental leave, and so on. Making abortion illegal doesn't make it go away. Which makes one wonder if it really is all about control, over women and those groups who will be inordinately affected by losing access to abortion.

The SCOTUS has 6 Catholics on it. I wonder what is the make up of the Louisiana Supreme Court.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

UChosePoorlyToday  07:49 am JST

Painkiller - what do you think the Founding Fathers would have thought about interracial marriage back in the late 1700s?

They obviously believed in marriage, just as they believed in procreation--both of which are not explicitly r¥mentioned in the original Constitution, so interracial marriage is simply marriage at its core----regardless, the Equal Protection Clause was an Amendment to the original constitution, and the "founding fathers" of that clause intended it to end discrimination, for which it was used as the rationale in making it unconstitutional to ban interracial marriage. Seems like the Supreme Court interpreted that correctly, wouldn't you agree

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

I figure this is the first major step towards the fracturing of America into smaller nations. The ideals being professed in different states are so extremely divergent, that there doesn't even really seem to be any reason to stay part of the same nation. To what end? To what benefit?

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Republicans think a woman exercising a choice over her own body is more dangerous than someone who shoots at people in public places. Law enforcement officials are already busy as it is trying to deal with the real violent criminals out there who have easy access to guns and kill people on a daily basis. How are they to expect them to devote more time and energy arresting and prosecuting these women? To them, a woman is worse than a gun.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Painkiller - regardless of the founding fathers’ thoughts on interracial marriage, I agree that Loving was decided correctly, but that is no guarantee that the current or future SCOTUS will agree, and that overrules any opinion you or I might have in the matter. That could end up kicking it back to the states for voters to decide on.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

In Friday's ruling, the Supreme Court left it to the states to decide whether to allow abortion.

This is a simple issue.

This is laughably and obviously the statement of a man who has never had to contemplate the situation that a woman now might find herself in.

For one thing, it is far from simple. It is a fundamental issue of body autonomy. Furthermore the idea that this is a state's rights issue is not only foolish, it's hypocritical of SCOTUS. As a direct result of this ruling, some women will be able to carry on as they did before and others, through the misfortune of birth in one of the "less-enlightened" states will be deprived of control of their own body and all the indignities that entails.

"But just move if you don't like it!" say the liberty folks. Not economically possible for a lot of women. I know that this is unfamiliar territory to all of our self-employed entrepreneurs here, but picking up your life, moving it and everything you own, finding employment and housing in a state perhaps hundreds of miles away is not "easy". Sometimes it's not even "possible."

As far as the states rights issue: that's a laugh. SCOTUS had no problem overturning a much less invasive 110 year old STATE law regarding concealed carry. (Oh BTW, 80% of Americans think that concealed carry is a dumb idea. At least I am not alone on that one.)

So this has nothing to do with State's rights. It is merely window dressing for those that did not like abortion and wanted it taken away.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Has anyone complaining actually read the ruling text?

Bet not...

-10 ( +4 / -14 )

just gotta have that abortion for even one more day.

Its pathetic. Its not even an election issue thanks to all the bungling of the Biden administration on the other key issues.

liberals lost gun, abortion and now prayer rulings within the last week due to the efforts of the most impactful president of our life time.

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

During the Constitutional Convention, the delegation from GA was actually against a Bill of Rights.

Like Stacy Abrams?

This is laughably and obviously the statement of a man who has never had to contemplate the situation that a woman now might find herself in.

Really? So you know more than the SC Justices? Interesting….

-13 ( +4 / -17 )

UChosePoorlyToday  08:04 am JST

Painkiller - regardless of the founding fathers’ thoughts on interracial marriage, I agree that Loving was decided correctly, but that is no guarantee that the current or future SCOTUS will agree, and that overrules any opinion you or I might have in the matter. That could end up kicking it back to the states for voters to decide on.

I have faith in the States' ability to handle these matters. If it it were to get to that point.

This is laughably and obviously the statement of a man who has never had to contemplate the situation that a woman now might find herself in.

My comment is on the court decision; not all the hypotheticals being thrown around.

Furthermore the idea that this is a state's rights issue is not only foolish, it's hypocritical of SCOTUS.

It is not only not foolish, it is established that it is a state's rights' issue.

So this has nothing to do with State's rights. It is merely window dressing for those that did not like abortion and wanted it taken away.

The Supreme Court says otherwise,

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

liberals lost gun, abortion and now prayer rulings within the last week due to the efforts of the most impactful president of our life time.

Sorry to desecrate your Trump shrine, but the Federalist Society chose the three newest justices. They just needed a Republican president and Senate. Any GOP president.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

I have faith in the States' ability to handle these matters. If it it were to get to that point.

I hope they do right thing, if it were to get to that point. We can’t relax though, the struggle continues.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

They just needed a Republican president and Senate. Any GOP president.

and who was that President who made the promise to do all this, if elected? He was elected based on those promises, selected the exact justices who held the vote (out of many other choices) and then did it?

Donald J. Trump, his legacy continues on.

lets call it Long Ultra MAGA.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

the most impactful president of our life time.

So was Hitler. So was Stalin. Oh, don't forget Mao. If one is Cambodian, Pol Pot figures in there somewhere.

Golly, I think I see a pattern arising. One wonders just how impactful he will be if (when) he goes to the federal rest home at Leavenworth?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

So was Hitler. So was Stalin. Oh, don't forget Mao. If one is Cambodian, Pol Pot figures in there somewhere.

lame.

none of these individuals were US presidents and most were not even in our lifetime unless you are are in your 80s.

Most impactful President of our lifetimes.

Guns, abortions, prayer.

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

Sorry to desecrate your Trump shrine, but the Federalist Society chose the three newest justices.

A bit more complicated than that.

They just needed a Republican president and Senate. Any GOP president.

Well, the Dems put up Biden, how’s that working out?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/patriotism-unity/a-million-voters-switch-to-republican-party-reversing-recent-democratic-gains

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Golly, I think I see a pattern arising. One wonders just how impactful he will be if (when) he goes to the federal rest home at Leavenworth?

Just as impactful, as none of these decisions would change.

Well maybe Dems can try to pack the court in 2037.

yeah, golly indeed.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

By selecting one, two, three right-wing judges with no sense of shame and displaying a smorgasbord of dubious moral standards from the bigoted Federalist Society menu of candidates, Trump put the cat among the pigeons and bigly shook up the practice of jurisprudence as the tip of the Right's spear. The negative fallout from this GOP conspiracy, long in the works and mind of Machiavellian Mitch McConnell, to pack and stack SCOTUS, is now becoming evident to all with eyes to see, but let's not forget the other side of the coin: the law of dialectics that will bring the hammer of the American people's ire down hard on this "Extreme" Court of the United States. In the following months (years) we're going to hear the scream, "we're mad as Hell, and we're not gonna take this any more!", play out all across the country.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

BlacklabelToday  08:29 am JST

Donald J. Trump, his legacy continues on.

So true, and I am wondering if the core of the anger of the left protesting this recent ruling really is just another tantrum directed at anything Trump, and they really don't care about the matter.

NemoToday  08:29 am JST

So was Hitler. So was Stalin. Oh, don't forget Mao. 

Abortion is legal in Germany, Russia, and China. Can always seek residency in one of those countries.

Or just move to a state in the US where abortion is legal; the Supreme Court gave the rights to make such decisions to the states. Vote for who you want, live where you want.

The American Way.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

So true, and I am wondering if the core of the anger of the left protesting this recent ruling really is just another tantrum directed at anything Trump, and they really don't care about the matter.

of course it is. they wont even give him the credit for it, "any" Republican president could have done it.

convenient abortion on demand is not a critical quality of life issue to this level of anger for anyone.

What is the purpose of the woman and her daughter in the picture at the top of this article?

Daughter, I really wish I had aborted you when I had the chance back then- now you wont have such ease to do that to your own future daughter?

Seriously what are they all super emotional about?

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

The hypocritic "state's rights" GOP will soon come after states like California who continue to allow women freedom of choice. California has introduced a bill to enshrine reproductive freedom in the state constitution. This sets up another Supreme Court battle: whether Congress can override and force changes to a state constitution. Of course, you know they'll say "Sure!," but only for abortion.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

If those matters were originally decided incorrectly, and were the product of judicial activism, then they should be decided correctly.

Like District of Columbia v. Heller?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Ah democracy.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

RiskyMosaicToday  09:08 am JST

Like District of Columbia v. Heller?

No, because it was not a product of judicial activism, it is not an Equal Protection (as it is part of the original constitution) or Due Process decision, and and it was decided correctly, as the popular majority agrees.

BlacklabelToday  08:59 am JST

What is the purpose of the woman and her daughter in the picture at the top of this article?

Daughter, I really wish I had aborted you when I had the chance back then- now you wont have such ease to do that to your own future daughter?

Excellent point.

Just shows the insincerity of the emotional outburst from the left.

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Rodney - are you not a fan?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

This is a victory for choice and the rule of law. ANyone who disagrees should petition their state legislatures.

Women can choose to have sex. Therefore they choose to get pregnant. Then, they can choose what to do- they can either have an abortion or have a baby. Then, they can choose where to do either one. If their state is restrictive, they can choose to go to a state with more relaxed laws. Or they can choose to carry the pregnancy to term. Then, they can choose to keep their baby or to put it up for adoption. Lots of places for women to choose in the current situation.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

The law in America is based on procedure,lots of poor people in America,get judgement against them,not based on information,but because they are not represented before the court

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Why are the left so keen on killing the unborn? Especially Black unborn babies.

-9 ( +4 / -13 )

Men have fewer choices. Men, like women, choose to have sex knowing that there is a chance of pregnancy. So, men also choose to be parents. However, their Right To Choose ends at that point. Such is biological reality.

In truth, most places will reach a compromise decision. The line will probably be drawn like it is across Europe, at around 12-15 weeks. The irony is that many states in the US will have much MORE liberal laws than is the case in myriad other jurisdictions.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

This ruling was to be expected after Trump stacked the supreme court with his god bothering mates.

It's odd that the pro-lifers state that abortion is murder. Banning abortion will result in more deaths through unwanted births and child abuse. There is also reason to believe many women will go back to the 60's and 70's practice of backyard abortions, many of which resulted in death from infection and permanent damage to reprodictive organs. This is a big step backwards.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Like District of Columbia v. Heller?

No, because it was not a product of judicial activism, it is not an Equal Protection (as it is part of the original constitution) or Due Process decision, and and it was decided correctly, as the popular majority agrees.

Yeah right. I guess that's why it threw out all precedent from before 2008 and was the result of a concerted effort from the gun lobby to the Court, in particular the NRA. It's telling that from 1791 until 2008, not one federal, state, or local law was found to violate the Second Amendment, in any court.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

quote: those involving medicine mailed to patients.

So they would be arresting postmen?

quote: Wisconsin passed a law in 1849.

If it hasn't been repealed, it is the law. Laws don't usually have sell by dates.

I'm not a huge fan of making lawyers rich. Seriously, move. Get out of these throwback coathanger states. America has a long history of internal migration. It is a lot easier than it used to be, especially with a labour shortage across the board. Take your cash, skills and family and move somewhere that is still functioning in the 21stC. Students can usually move from one university to another mid-degree (as I did). Republican states are likely to have higher gun ownership too, so that's another good reason to up sticks. Any presidential fixes will be erased by the next Republican incumbent. Before a mass migration affects property prices, be first out the door. No different from getting out of Saigon, Afghanistan or Hong Kong.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Disillusioned... ALL Presidents stack the court with their political allies. The court leaned left for decades before the Trump years. Now it leans conservative. Deal with it. Soon enough it will lean left again.

As for causing more death and so on, there is no evidence of that. You are raising hysterical specters that have no basis in reality. There will surely be dozens of charities formed among rich abortion supporters, to give care and money to poor women who need it. They can freely travel to get their abortion if they want, and anyone who wants to help them is welcome to do so. No need for such illogical scaremongering.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

GBR 48- that is already happening. The four states losing the most population are California, New York, Hawaii, and Illinois. Gee, what do they all have in common... SImilarly, places like Utah, Arizona, Tennessee, and Texas are gaining population. So your prediction indeed is coming true!

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

The hypocrisy of it all!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

vaxatharian

Why are the left so keen on killing the unborn?

They aren't. They just think that a woman should have autonomy over their own bodies.

It's also instructive to note that the original decision on Roe vs Wade was authored by a justice who was appointed by Nixon! And that the 7-2 decision had a majority of Republican appointed justices. At the time a majority of Republicans supported it and more Republicans supported it than Democrats. So this is really a view that those on the right used to hold.

Also, in those days, evangelical Christians supported abortion; only Catholics opposed it, because of the Pope's decree.

And considering this is Japan Today, what do you think the average Japanese person thinks about abortion? They don't give it a second thought and get one if necessary.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Not to mention, why are women protesting in fron of City Hall in San Francisco, California? THey are standing on the most liberal piece of territory in the entire country. Hell, Cali will probably update their abortion laws to allow abortion up to 12 weeks AFTER the baby is born!

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

It's odd that the pro-lifers state that abortion is murder. 

I don’t think most pro-lifers view abortion on the same level as murder, though I am sure some do. If they did, they wouldn’t be suggesting that women can just get abortions through the mail, or get abortions in blue states, or move to blue states.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

AttilathehungryToday  09:24 am JST

This is a victory for choice and the rule of law. ANyone who disagrees should petition their state legislatures.

Women can choose to have sex. Therefore they choose to get pregnant. Then, they can choose what to do- they can either have an abortion or have a baby. Then, they can choose where to do either one. If their state is restrictive, they can choose to go to a state with more relaxed laws. Or they can choose to carry the pregnancy to term. Then, they can choose to keep their baby or to put it up for adoption. Lots of places for women to choose in the current situation.

All true, and common sense.

I think the left is even starting to realize that any arguments they have against the Supreme Court ruling on law are in vain.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

The irony that is lost in the situation is that the case itself was brought to the Court by radical pro-abortion advocates. They thought that Mississippi was being too harsh in limiting abortion to 15 weeks. So they in effect forced the Court's hand- it wasn't pro-lifers by any means. To paraphrase Chuck Schumer, "you have released the whirlwind".

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

What women choose to do with their bodies is their choice. Keep your damn laws off their uteruses.

I hope the protesters make enough noise to undo this nonsense. Shame on those who put this mess into motion.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

There are more red states than blue states. If more Democrat voters move out of them, the Senate will permanently become a Republican organization. Also, more free electors with less population in presidential elections. Maybe the republicans are playing this game right now. And assuming that they won't try to ban abortions nationwide when they obtain the power to do so is very naive.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Why are the left so keen on killing the unborn?

Why are the right so keen on using rhetoric and extremism to avoid a rational debate and instead flying into hysterics?

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Men have fewer choices. Men, like women, choose to have sex knowing that there is a chance of pregnancy. So, men also choose to be parents.

Although if an unwanted pregnancy results from sex, men get to skip away scot-free while the women are forced to deal with the consequences for the rest of their lives.

So let's avoid unwanted or unplanned pregnancies all together. How about forced vasectomies for men until they are married? They are reversible - an outpatient procedure that’s usually completed in 30–60 minutes - and safe and effective. Or mandated condom use for any sex which is not for the express purpose of procreation?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Jeans; men should not be able to "skip away" from their responsibilities. I would be in favor of garnishing their wages to pay child support. Plus, perhaps women should choose their partners a little more carefully. With most guys, it is pretty obvious how they would behave in a situation like this.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The options are not just for women to move to another state.

Chronic low voter turnout for state elections has a cost.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Now the medievals are going for more civil rights achieved with much effort, they want to turn the US into a religious, ultra-conservative, authoritarian white fundamentalist utopia..

A country where a gun has more privileges than a woman... And they presume to be so democratic and loving of freedom, the same freedom that themselves are destroying...

Third World..

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Plus, perhaps women should choose their partners a little more carefully. 

I thought so. It's all on the women, because men never make dumb decisions, right? That's why I'm advocating for mandated condom use or vasectomies. If we're controlling women's decisions, why not men's too?

If men got pregnant I'm pretty sure their right to choose what they did about it would be protected.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

The states not allowing abortion even in the case of rape or incest are the same.states where the incidence of rape and incest are high. I think forced castrations would be a more appropriate unwanted medical procedure than making a 12 year old carry a rapist’s child to term.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I would be in favor of garnishing their wages to pay child support.

Yeah, a care free life minus a couple hundred bucks a month vs a kid you don't want, and likely resent, for the rest of your life. Sounds fair.

What if the dad doesn't earn? Oh, that's right, it's the woman's fault for sleeping with him. Sorry, I forgot that only the men are blameless here.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites