Should Roe v. Wade be overturned?

[historia]

More precisely: Should the current Supreme Court precedent on abortion -- first established by Roe v. Wade, but later modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey -- be overturned?

My question here is not so much whether abortion should be legal or not, since overturning Roe would not, in itself, make abortion illegal, with several states having laws that explicitly allow for abortions.

[otseng]

No need I am deleting the app. I do not coddle or mince with with God haters.

Moderator Action

User has been banned.


______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.

[historia]

[Replying to historia in post #1]

Picking up where we left off on this issue:

There appears to be a leaked draft of the Supreme Court's upcoming decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, written by Justice Alito. It's essential conclusion:

Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.

It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. "The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting." Casey, 505 U.S. at 979 (Scalia, J, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.

We should probably take this information with a grain of salt. But, if this does indeed reflect the overall decision of the Court, what do folks make of Alito's argument?

[JoeyKnothead]

An old guy telling the wimminfolk what they can and can't do with their bodies.

I ain't shocked the first bit.

We gotta get these religious zealots out of our courts and other halls of governance.

[Miles]

[Replying to historia in post #1]

Picking up where we left off on this issue:

There appears to be a leaked draft of the Supreme Court's upcoming decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case, written by Justice Alito. It's essential conclusion:

Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.

It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. "The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting." Casey, 505 U.S. at 979 (Scalia, J, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part). That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.

We should probably take this information with a grain of salt. But, if this does indeed reflect the overall decision of the Court, what do folks make of Alito's argument?

It's frightening, mostly because it would appear to go against much of the well thought out reasoning behind the Roe v. Wade decision. It will be interesting to see the court's majority argument. I expect quite a bit of rhetoric supported by hyperbole, verbosity, distortion, and outright lies.


.

[Difflugia]

We should probably take this information with a grain of salt. But, if this does indeed reflect the overall decision of the Court, what do folks make of Alito's argument?

I'm of two minds. Roe was good for the country and its women, but I'm not sure it was properly unconstitutional. In the narrow sense that the original Roe was probably incorrect from a Constitutional standpoint, I agree with Alito. That its effect was somehow damaging and actually caused more division is nonsense.

While one of the goals of the Constitution was to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority and I think the original Roe was decided in the same spirit that the Constitution was originally framed, I don't like that the Supreme Court gave itself that much latitude in the first place. On the other hand, that protection has been real and removing it for the sake of a technicality is unconscionable.

[Bust Nak]

Back when Trump took power, a Trump voter said they voted for Trump because he would end abortion. To which I said Trump wouldn't actually get round to making abortion illegal, because it's the one wedge issue Republicans are banking on to motivate single issue voters. I felt I made the right call when his term ended with Roe v. Wade still in place. But it now looks increasingly like I bet wrong. Abortion is still a wedge issue, but now it's up to the Democrats to wield it.

[historia]

An old guy telling the wimminfolk what they can and can't do with their bodies.

I take it from this reply that you didn't actually read the draft argument.

[historia]

It's frightening, mostly because it would appear to go against much of the well thought out reasoning behind the Roe v. Wade decision.

At the risk of repeating our earlier comments in this thread, Miles, what exactly do you find to be the "well thought out reasoning" behind Roe?

It will be interesting to see the court's majority argument. I expect quite a bit of rhetoric supported by hyperbole, verbosity, distortion, and outright lies.

Why?

[historia]

In the narrow sense that the original Roe was probably incorrect from a Constitutional standpoint, I agree with Alito.

I agree, of course. We'll see what dissenting or concurring arguments come forward in the final ruling -- or, indeed, changes to Alito's opinion, since this is just a draft after all. But I personally think it's hard to rebut Alito's argument, which is why few in this thread have tried.

That its effect was somehow damaging and actually caused more division is nonsense.

Do you not think that the abortion debate has been divisive and damaging to American politics?

I don't like that the Supreme Court gave itself that much latitude in the first place. On the other hand, that protection has been real and removing it for the sake of a technicality is unconscionable.

I fully appreciate that some people who want liberal abortion laws won't like the consequence of this decision (should it be the actual decision).

But making "narrow" and "technical" (that is to say, legal) decisions is precisely what the Supreme Court is meant to do. The Justices were never intended to be the arbiters of morality or public health, nor should any of us want them to be.

[Difflugia]

Do you not think that the abortion debate has been divisive and damaging to American politics?

The abortion debate has been, but Roe didn't create the debate.

The Justices were never intended to be the arbiters of morality or public health, nor should any of us want them to be.

They do, however, have the unquestionable latitude to refuse to hear any case, as they routinely do when the issue of qualified immunity arises. Unless one thinks that they have a moral duty to revisit any decision that was incorrectly made in the past when such an opportunity arises, this one should have been left alone, too.

The Supreme Court clearly doesn't think that it has such a duty.