‘Abortion Is Just the Beginning’: Six Experts on the Decision Overturning Roe

[maestrob]

By overturning Roe v. Wade, Dobbs is sure to go down as one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions, undoing a constitutional right that’s been in place for nearly half a century and delivering a decisive victory to the anti-abortion movement.

As people try to make sense of this moment, we’ve asked six experts — among them, an abortion historian, a university president and two lawyers who’ve argued major cases before the high court — to select one paragraph from the majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, or from the concurring opinions or the dissent, and unpack what it tells us about both the ruling and the future of America.

Follow this link to the complete analysis: no paywall:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... =url-share

[Rach3]

SCOTUS' fraud, as Alito blows off need to consider "empirical " evidence of effect of repeal of Roe on women ( recalls Trump's " ...grab 'em by the... " ):

Check out this gift article, at no cost to you. The court’s right-wingers have abandoned their duty to promote stability in the law and are inviting real-world disruption:

https://wapo.st/3I7HtN7

[Belle]

More catastrophizing from the Left. Sorry, it's sounding more and more like the boy who cried "wolf". I note a lot of companies are now offering travel expenses, abortion care costs and even bail for employees who are arrested at an abortion protest!! Companies which have identified themselves with that include Buzzfeed, Citigroup....WOW. Decadence lives. Apart from that it's just plain creepy when the corporation is in the bedroom of staff. In Australia companies pay for their female staff to freeze their eggs!! Brave new world, indeed.

I think Dr. Bret Weinstein is right on the money; he says the political duopoly in the USA simply isn't working as it's polarizing people, and that's all it's doing. Both sides are at fault. And he says Roe v Wade favoured men with regard to sexual relationships; that the legal availability of abortion meant that the currency of men's sexual freedom without the commitment to any relationship was just valued-added, particularly after the arrival of The Pill. (I did say that myself at the time, having seen what sexual libertinism did for my female cohort. Too bad for them that many of these women couldn't work it out themselves! I could write a book and it would all be about depression, suicide attempts and substance abuse when it finally dawned on them that their mates only wanted sex and not a relationship!)

In the late 1960s (when the Pill was already available) I had some friends who became pregnant and they simply had to surrender their babies. Society forced them to, but they also couldn't afford to raise them on their own and their own parents were unwilling. The vast majority of them found happy and stable homes. For these women abortion was totally out of the question, even if this was available, as it was for 2 of my sisters who went to the altar at 18 and 19 'in the family way'. My father threw his hands up in absolute horror when the sisters said they were pregnant; I'll never forget it. A Catholic family with pregnant teenaged daughters!! Their older sister was the only one with smarts!!

Wouldn't it be good if the vast numbers of unwanted babies could find loving parents who are unable to have children themselves? This option for infertile couples dried up some decades ago. For many, even if they could afford it, IVF doesn't work.

[jserraglio]

. . . abortion was totally out of the question . . . as it was for 2 of my sisters who went to the altar at 18 and 19 'in the family way'. My father threw his hands up in absolute horror when the sisters said they were pregnant; I'll never forget it. A Catholic family with pregnant teenaged daughters!!

Hmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn....... TMI

[jserraglio]

duplicate msg

[maestrob]

The right-wing majority’s selective application of history reveals the larger fraud in this pair of landmark rulings: Their reasoning is not legal but political, not principled but partisan.

Ruth Marcus said it so well.

[Rach3]

SCOTUS' fraud, as Alito blows off need to consider "empirical " evidence of effect of repeal of Roe on women ( recalls Trump's " ...grab 'em by the... " ):

From Alito's opinion:

"When a concrete reliance interest is asserted, courts are equipped to evaluate the claim, but assessing the novel and intangible form of reliance endorsed by the Casey plurality is another matter. That form of reliance depends on an empirical question that is hard for anyone—and in particular, for a court—to assess, namely, the effect of the abortion right on society and in particular on the lives of women. "...Our decision returns the issue of abortion to those legislative bodies, and it allows women on both sides of the abortion issue to seek to affect the legislative process by influencing public opinion, lobbying legislators, voting, and running for office. Women are not without electoral or political power. "

After 50 years of Roe , what utter BS that abortion rights are considered "novel and intangible", or that the effects of those rights on women are " hard to assess."

The ONLY issue opponents of Roe have raised is not "effects" on women, but rather opponents position that "rights" of a fetus over-ride the rights of the mother, from conception, no matter how difficult mothers' lives become as a result, since a fetus is entitled to full " personhood" . In matters of life and death, and other fundamental, inalienable rights, we have always turned to the wisdom of Courts to make decisions, and have not relied on the whims of ever-changing electoral majorities, otherwise the term "liberty" would be meaningless, as during the Jim Crow South or Texas now.

[jserraglio]

Alito and Thomas have no excuse for their intellectual dishonesty. Each one of their leaky, wrinkly, septuagenarian butts is old enough to know better.

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett, though, are mere infants blinded by theocratic ambition and not nearly old enough to remember firsthand what it was like to live in pre-Roe terror.

Neither are most Americans, Wait till the harsh reality sinks in. My neighbor nearly died from her self-inflicted “miscarriage” in the 1950s.

The G,O.P. have probably lined their political coffins with the Alito decision and Thomas’ codicil.

Bring on the Midterms!

[Rach3]

Alito and Thomas have no excuse for their intellectual dishonesty. Each one of their leaky, wrinkly, septuagenarian butts is old enough to know better.Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett, though, are mere infants blinded by theocratic ambition and not nearly old enough to remember firsthand what it was like to live in pre-Roe terror.

The anti-abortionist position is bottomed on a religious belief that life begins at conception,perhaps even earlier as Thomas’ anti-contraceptive stance clearly suggests he may believe. A contrary or at least different religious belief is held by those who are pro- abortion.Alito knows this, yet ignores the First Amendment freedom of religious exercise right held by pro-abortionists, and also ignores the establishment clause by his allowing States to ban or restrict abortion pre-viability, in effect creating a State - established religious law on the subject, in addition to denying free exercise rights of abortion seekers.These First Amendment rights and prohibitions exist even if viability commences at 1 week. Alito’s critique of the viability test is not only scientifically disingenuous , but also legally dishonest.He also ignores the “ involuntary servitude” provisions of the 13th Amendment which are not limited to the Civil War context, and in fact the 13th passed when white slave-owner sexual abuse of women slaves had been frequent.

Some thoughts on actions to rein in the Court or at least worry them a bit, although I doubt will worry madmen like Proud Boys and mysoginists Alito and Thomas, or Saint Barrett , or seat - stealer Gorsuch:

How to Discipline a Rogue Supreme Court

Make use of the constitutional system.

https://tinyurl.com/3pks5wee


Want Dems also need to do because the decision is nothing more than a political power grab by Alito and Thomas :

Supreme Court Forever War

https://wapo.st/3buMDqb


You should be able to access the articles ( both short ) with the above links.

What the rest of us need to do is make clear to ALL others that if they are a GOP voter or an anti- abortionist, we are not in Mr. Roger’s neighborhood and no, we can no longer be friends.

[Belle]

I read this yesterday and it's relevant to the abortion debate:

https://quillette.com/2022/06/24/the-tr ... -abortion/

My reading of your concerns about this tells me it's just another political can to kick in your own quest for nirvana and political dominance and not really a matter about welfare, health and the social responsibility on women to take charge of their own bodies for the purpose of contraception. Don't ever mention "personal responsibility" to a Lefty; toys will be hurled from cots. You'll be speaking a foreign language to them.

I note your (by now, familiar) ostracism schtick in the previous comments, so very typical of the Left. Cry-bullies, all. Perhaps you should feel contemptuous of them and immensely sorry that they don't hold your enlightened views and that this is, after all, yet another consequence of being "deplorable".

It's not lost on me either that Roe v Wade was originally passed during the 'hippy' era of peak promiscuity when the Pill was widely available. That tells us a great deal about the role of abortion on morality and modern life.

The issue of rape/incest/criminality and abortion is separate to "my body, my choice" by a huge factor.

[Rach3]

It's not lost on me either that Roe v Wade was originally passed during the 'hippy' era of peak promiscuity when the Pill was widely available.

Justice Blackmun , who wrote Roe v. Wade , was not known as a " hippie." Nor as being very " hip." Nor as being promiscuous.

A reading of the actual Roe decision makes clear the dissenting Justices in Dobbs are correct when they state nothing has changed since Roe except the people on the Court, ie. Dobbs is a political power grab / hit job.

Roe: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113

[jserraglio]

It's not lost on me either that Roe v Wade was originally passed during the 'hippy' era of peak promiscuity when the Pill was widely available.

Not only are you tone-deaf to American culture, you play fast and loose with its history.

You see, here in the U.S., we say laws are passed. No legislative body passed Roe v. Wade; it was an ongoing dispute in the courts about constitutional rights under the law that was finally settled by a decision of the SCOTUS.

Maybe in la-la land, the courts pass laws. Here, court and legislature are separate entities.

Turning to your broad-brush distortion of our history — lost on you, apparently, is the fact that by the time Roe was decided in 1973, hippies in the U.S. were just about extinct. In fact, the early ‘70s were marked by a conservative resurgence countering the perceived loosey-gooseyness of the 1960s—Richard Nixon’s abortive second term and the Watergate era.

Around the time of Roe, abortion was not nearly the wedge issue it later became. Before he ran for president in the early ‘80s, Gov. Ronald Reagan (R-Calif.) had supported legalizing abortion. So had the Southern Baptist Convention, then and now the largest Protestant denomination in America. Yes, at the time the hierarchy of the politically powerful Roman Catholic Church had long bitterly opposed it, but otherwise abortion was relatively non-controversial, even among evangelical Protestants. As late as 1993, Ruth Bader Ginsburg could openly support abortion rights during her nomination hearings, yet still be confirmed 96-3 in the Senate. Even the archconservative Orrin Hatch voted for her.

Was Ronald Reagan a hippie? Well, maybe so, Belle, maybe so. The whangdoodles on the Right today whose political line you so blithely toe probably would call Reagan a hippie.

As for the Pill, you might want to get your story straight:

1. You favor the Pill to prevent unwanted pregnancy and thereby avoid abortion.

2. In the very next breath, you condemn the Pill for encouraging promiscuity.

3. You also conflate two separate and distinct Court decisions — its protecting the right to obtain and use contraceptives (1967) and its guarantee of abortion rights (1973).

What this all adds up to, Belle, is a mishmash of half-baked, misinformed and misconceived, contradictory notions, Maybe somebody else can make sense of them. I can’t.

[Rach3]

I note your (by now, familiar) ostracism schtick in the previous comments, so very typical of the Left. Cry-bullies, all. Perhaps you should feel contemptuous of them and immensely sorry that they don't hold your enlightened views and that this is, after all, yet another consequence of being "deplorable".

I dont apologize for ostracizing on matters of life and death. From "Men Yell At Me" newsletter today, anti-abortionists in action in Iowa this past weekend, utilizing the Charlottesville tactic, some of Trump's " good people on both sides ":

"On Friday, the day the Supreme Court announced I no longer had the right to an abortion, I went to a protest. It was a larger crowd than I expected. Iowans aren’t much for shouting and my city (Des Moines) isn’t that big. But there were almost 300 people there in a parking lot across the street from the federal courthouse.

But people were there, anxious to do something, anything. Our right to bodily autonomy was being taken away. They held up signs in the golden evening light. We said “hi,” neighbors, acquaintances, we all knew each other mostly, how could we not? When you live in town long enough, you realize your therapist is best friends with your doctor and the server at the restaurant? His mom taught your kids in preschool.

I spoke at that protest. I told people the story of my sister.I told them how she’d had to fight so hard to fight for her life after a car accident at 16. How I stood over her bed in the surgical ICU and screamed at her to “BREATHE!” the doctors hoping she’d hear me through her heavily medicated state and how her oxygen levels would rise when she heard my voice.

I told them their voices mattered. That sometimes our shouts could pull someone back from dark place. I told them we didn’t have the luxury of despair. And that while our reproductive choices were being stripped, hope was a choice, fighting was a choice. And we could choose it that day.

I told them I wanted them to live. I wanted to shout and shout and keep them all alive, like I’d done with my sister.

After the speeches, about 150 of us marched through the city, holding our signs and chanting. It was hot and the walk was long. By the time we streamed back to the parking lot the protest was done. Just a handful of people left. We crossed the busy street with the traffic light and in the crosswalk. When I got to the curb, I turned and saw a black truck that was sitting behind two cars weave around them and head straight through the crosswalk. People tried to stop him, they banged on his hood and hit the side of his truck. A crowd of people surged around the truck as it pushed through the intersection trying to pull two women away from the front of the truck. I learned later another woman fell and hit her head. One woman had her foot crushed. The truck drove away.

In the hours and now days since the incident, I’ve had people tell me we should have been more polite, better behaved. Was I sure, they ask, that the people injured didn’t somehow incite it? As if anyone deserves to be hit by a car. As if anyone can be good enough to protect them from the violence of our country.

I witnessed a man try to kill people and in response, people told me I should be nicer.

You can’t politely smile hard enough for the state to give you your rights back. You cannot be sweet enough to protect yourself from violence. You cannot dress in a dress pretty enough. You can’t be blonde or white enough to protect you from what is coming.

The day my community showed up to protest our loss of bodily autonomy, I saw a man try to kill us. And he got away. Because of Iowa’s laws protecting drivers who hit protesters, it doesn’t seem like any charges will be filed. Also, our mayor put out a statement casting doubt on the protesters and city council has been quiet. The local news as framed it as an “altercation.” As if pedestrians telling a truck not to kill them is a both sides issue. As if walking back to your car is a provocation. No the only provocation was existing. The only provocation was us screaming that we wanted a right to exist. To live. To choose our own lives.

I haven’t been able to forget his face. His red screaming face. It was so full of hate and I see it every time I close my eyes. I see it now when I cross the street. I went on a run on Saturday and a truck drove by me and I thought it was him. I jumped into a nearby yard and started crying. This country wants me dead.But I refuse. I’ll keep screaming."

Some additional tweets received :


This man just tried to run through a crowd of people marching for abortion rights in Mason City, Iowa.
June 27th 2022

A man in a truck just ran down two peaceful protesters at the pro-abortion rally in Cedar Rapids (Iowa)
June 25th 2022