The Roe Countdown

[McHrozni]

When does Roe v Wade get thrown out?

With a SCOTUS now built on solidly anti-abortion conservatives, I can see a 5-4 vote devolving legislation to states happening in the very near future.

I reckon the Red Team will be looking for a judgement before the 2020 election, so my pick is within one year. I believe there's a case of one state in the courts right now, so should be an easy one for SCOTUS to pick up, since every judge so far has denied legislative attempts to block abortion.

Pence's words - "Roe will be overturned within our lifetime" looking fairly prophetic about now.

Anyone with evidence Trump paid for an abortion needs to step right up, because I'd see that as the only chance left to prevent the absurd attacks on women's rights by white men.

With these poll numbers overturning Roe v Wade might be a great thing for USA.

http://content.gallup.com/origin/ga...roduction/Cms/POLL/lr-ihjzmlkarrrl5ccpy2w.png

https://content.gallup.com/origin/g...roduction/Cms/POLL/ryh-rxxrn0w6mcah12ztdw.png

Republicans would be locked out of federal government for a decade, allowing for serious house-cleaning. Add the effect of overturning their gerrymanderign and other laws slanting the electoral field that way and the decade may well turn into two decades, opening up the field to a new generation of different politics.

That's why I picked the last option, the Supreme Court will not overturn the ruling if it ever comes to that.

McHrozni

 

[smartcooky]

A couple of questions

Is there any law preventing a pregnant woman from travelling out of state or to Canada to get an abortion?

What is there to prevent a private hospital or abortion clinic in a state where abortion is legal from advertising for clients from states where abortion is illegal? They could do so via the internet.

NOTE: the domain http://pregnancytermination.com/ is available for purchase

 

[sadhatter]

You don't agree that the OP almost has a giddy tone to Roe being overturned? Up until his statement about taking away women's rights I would have guessed that he was almost excited that they're being taken away.

Because it's hip to hate the United States.

Now not products of the United states, because that would mean not enjoying most media and a hell of a lot of products and that would require actual sacrifice.

 

[3point14]

You seem to be happy with the idea of the US toally going down the tube.

Also, TA, why are you borderline gloating in your OP?

You don't agree that the OP almost has a giddy tone to Roe being overturned? Up until his statement about taking away women's rights I would have guessed that he was almost excited that they're being taken away.

Can any of you be specific about which bit? Cos I just can't see it at all.

 

[Meadmaker]

I voted for the early option.

The Alabama law goes into effect in six months. It will of course be immediately challenged, probably with multiple lawsuits. Since the law violates existing Supreme Court precedent, it will be thrown out by a federal district court, or conceivably upheld by the district court, but enforcement put on hold pending an appeal. Since there will be multiple suits, at least one will result in the law being overturned by a district court.

At that point, the state will appeal. Normally the appeals process takes a long time, a couple of years, but if the matter to be settled has a time limit, the Supreme Court can pick it up for immediate hearing. I think in this case, they will, which means that the case could be heard by the Court by early next year. Normally, the opinions in major cases wait until the end of the term, but, once again, they can rush this one. It's not like these guys haven't thought about it. They could write their opinions today, and just fill in some of the details with the specific case when it gets to them.


How they rule is less obvious to me, but I would expect a 5-4 vote that overturns Roe v. Wade. Some people are expecting the court to make a more limited ruling, and that is not impossible, but these laws were written specifically for the purpose of challenging Roe v. Wade. The court could issue a more limited ruling, but I don't think they will. I don't think any of them will see any reason to wait. They know it will be back.

Well, how do they vote? Thomas and Alito certainly vote to overturn. Gorsuch has made a big deal about original intent and opposing judicial activism. He votes to overturn. Kavanaugh and Roberts could be surprise votes, but I don't expect it. I think it's 5-4, unless Ginsburg retires, in which case it's 5-3 or 6-3, depending on timing. A few years back the Republicans didn't want to vote on a new Supreme Court justice during a presidential election year, but I'm guessing they'll decide it's ok this time around.

 

[McHrozni]

A couple of questions

Is there any law preventing a pregnant woman from travelling out of state or to Canada to get an abortion?

What is there to prevent a private hospital or abortion clinic in a state where abortion is legal from advertising for clients from states where abortion is illegal? They could do so via the internet.

NOTE: the domain http://pregnancytermination.com/ is available for purchase

The issue is those who couldn't afford such trips. There are surprisingly many in the US. Furthermore, states could pass laws that make it illegal to help someone make the trip to get an abortion, similar arrangements exist in Europe regarding euthanasia.

McHrozni

 

[BobTheCoward]

Alternative argument...

Regardless of your position on abortion, Roe is a bad decision and should be overturned

 

[ponderingturtle]

You seem to be happy with the idea of the US toally going down the tube.
Just remember this:The undertow of that happening will impact a lot of countries..including Kiwiland.

Look it will be a victory for republicans all over the country, they have worked for years for this and cutting taxes on the wealthy. This should be viewed like the increased income inequality as the work of a generation of great conservative leadership.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It should be noted that overturning Roe v. Wade will not make abortion illegal.

Not immediately, that will be hours later when they pass federal anti abortion laws, like how texas redistricted immediately after they removed the voting rights act. Easily within a year if the republicans control the house and senate.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm going to classify "overturned" as "allowed a set of restrictions difficult enough to make abortions too emotionally and monetarily costly for the largest majority of pregnancy-capable women in the country.

But that is already the case. I expect an outright saying that states can ban abortion.

 

[ponderingturtle]

A couple of questions

Is there any law preventing a pregnant woman from travelling out of state or to Canada to get an abortion?

Yes that is in some of the laws being passed. Or rather if she is found to have done that it is a major felony.

 

[cosmicaug]

Yes that is in some of the laws being passed. Or rather if she is found to have done that it is a major felony.

That would be the Georgia version and I believe that that is not actually in the law. Instead, stories about this law have extrapolated from the fact that the Georgia law creates fetal personhood.

It is not accepted that that it is so that murder penalties would apply:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/05/11/could-miscarriages-land-women-jail-lets-clarify-these-georgia-alabama-abortion-bills/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/georgia-heartbeat-bill-will-not-imprison-women-who-have-abortions/

However, I am not convinced that you can create fetal personhood without ultimately attaching the legal implications of murder to the killing of a fetus. The fact that I am unconvinced may be entirely due to my ignorance as IANAL.

 

[Belz...]

I can't make heads or tails of this poll. Where's my planet X option?

 

[ponderingturtle]

That would be the Georgia version and I believe that that is not actually in the law. Instead, stories about this law have extrapolated from the fact that the Georgia law creates fetal personhood.

It is not accepted that that it is so that murder penalties would apply:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/05/11/could-miscarriages-land-women-jail-lets-clarify-these-georgia-alabama-abortion-bills/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/georgia-heartbeat-bill-will-not-imprison-women-who-have-abortions/

However, I am not convinced that you can create fetal personhood without ultimately attaching the legal implications of murder to the killing of a fetus. The fact that I am unconvinced may be entirely due to my ignorance as IANAL.

Why would this be so weird though, Ireland had such laws until recently.

 

[welshdean]

<snip>

Just remember this:The undertow of that happening will impact a lot of countries..including Kiwiland.

Only in theocracies.
The civilised nations of the world resolved this matter generations ago.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Only in theocracies.
The civilised nations of the world resolved this matter generations ago.

Not the UK then, see Northern Ireland.

 

[Drewbot]

All I see in TA's post is acknowledgement of the stark reality that the arch-conservative scum are close to a win on the issue of abortion, a win that will bring misery to millions of women in this country.

We are sorry for all the misery women will have to endure, from not killing their babies.

I'm just wowed by the media's ability to change thinking on this topic.

40 years ago, not killing babies would be the mainstream logic. And abortions on demand would be the crazy kook logic.

Today: It seems as though those who are for not killing babies, are the kooks.

How did that happen?

 

[cosmicaug]

That would be the Georgia version and I believe that that is not actually in the law. Instead, stories about this law have extrapolated from the fact that the Georgia law creates fetal personhood.

It is not accepted that that it is so that murder penalties would apply:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/05/11/could-miscarriages-land-women-jail-lets-clarify-these-georgia-alabama-abortion-bills/
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/georgia-heartbeat-bill-will-not-imprison-women-who-have-abortions/

However, I am not convinced that you can create fetal personhood without ultimately attaching the legal implications of murder to the killing of a fetus. The fact that I am unconvinced may be entirely due to my ignorance as IANAL.

Why would this be so weird though, Ireland had such laws until recently.

I don't understand your comment. I haven't suggested weirdness about anything. I pointed out that this aspect, the criminalization of out of state abortions, does not appear to be a part of any of the laws under discussion.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't understand your comment. I haven't suggested weirdness about anything. I pointed out that this aspect, the criminalization of out of state abortions, does not appear to be a part of any of the laws under discussion.

Except when the laws themselves were under discussion.

 

[cosmicaug]

I voted for the early option.

The Alabama law goes into effect in six months. It will of course be immediately challenged, probably with multiple lawsuits. Since the law violates existing Supreme Court precedent, it will be thrown out by a federal district court, or conceivably upheld by the district court, but enforcement put on hold pending an appeal. Since there will be multiple suits, at least one will result in the law being overturned by a district court.

At that point, the state will appeal. Normally the appeals process takes a long time, a couple of years, but if the matter to be settled has a time limit, the Supreme Court can pick it up for immediate hearing. I think in this case, they will, which means that the case could be heard by the Court by early next year. Normally, the opinions in major cases wait until the end of the term, but, once again, they can rush this one. It's not like these guys haven't thought about it. They could write their opinions today, and just fill in some of the details with the specific case when it gets to them.


How they rule is less obvious to me, but I would expect a 5-4 vote that overturns Roe v. Wade. Some people are expecting the court to make a more limited ruling, and that is not impossible, but these laws were written specifically for the purpose of challenging Roe v. Wade. The court could issue a more limited ruling, but I don't think they will. I don't think any of them will see any reason to wait. They know it will be back.

Well, how do they vote? Thomas and Alito certainly vote to overturn. Gorsuch has made a big deal about original intent and opposing judicial activism. He votes to overturn. Kavanaugh and Roberts could be surprise votes, but I don't expect it. I think it's 5-4, unless Ginsburg retires, in which case it's 5-3 or 6-3, depending on timing. A few years back the Republicans didn't want to vote on a new Supreme Court justice during a presidential election year, but I'm guessing they'll decide it's ok this time around.

Yes, but there exists also a possibility that the court will simply choose not to hear the case at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/15/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion.html

Lower courts will almost certainly strike down the Alabama statute and other direct bans on abortion, like the ones that bar the procedure after doctors can detect what the measures call a “fetal heartbeat,” which happens at around six weeks of pregnancy. The lower courts will have little choice, as controlling Supreme Court precedents prohibit outright bans on abortion until the fetus is viable outside the womb, usually at about 24 weeks.

Since the Supreme Court controls its own docket, it can simply deny review after lower courts strike down laws squarely at odds with Roe.


[...]


But Justice Kavanaugh has also exhibited some restraint in his first months on the court, and he may not be eager for an immediate confrontation with the basic issue when intermediate steps are available.

There are three members of the court — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — who seem less patient. In February, Justice Thomas wrote that Roe was among the court’s “most notoriously incorrect decisions.” He gave one other example of such a ruling: Dred Scott v. Sandford, the 1857 decision that said black slaves were property and not citizens.

It takes only four votes to add a case to the court’s docket, meaning that either Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Kavanaugh could force the court to confront the ultimate fate of a constitutional right to abortion when a case concerning the Alabama law or a similar one reaches the court.

“What we don’t know,” Professor Franklin said, “is the extent to which either Chief Justice Roberts or Justice Kavanaugh feels sufficiently bound by 50 years of precedent, or by a desire not to be viewed by the public as discarding that precedent for political-ideological reasons, to pull back from the brink.”