Here it comes, everyone.

Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

So they'll overturn Roe v. Wade. Here's Politico's analysis:

The overturning of Roe would almost immediately lead to stricter limits on abortion access in large swaths of the South and Midwest, with about half of the states set to immediately impose broad abortion bans. Any state could still legally allow the procedure.

But I have a question. Why should we expect the statement voiced in the last sentence to be true? Can't we expect subsequent rulings to make abortion illegal in all fifty states?

The key word that would support such an assumption is "abortionists." From Alito's opinion:

In several passages, he describes doctors and nurses who terminate pregnancies as “abortionists.”

The main point, after all, of anti-abortion politics is to argue that abortion is "murder" and that "abortionists" are therefore "murderers." Why would the Supreme Court argue that "murder," defined thusly, can be legal in some states and illegal in others?

I expect this argument to come up in future cases, and for the majority on the Supreme Court to buy into it fully. You should expect this too.

Share
up
23 users have voted.

Comments

snoopydawg's picture

the death penalty on the table and it doesn’t matter to them if some innocent people get caught up in the system. They demand blood for every life that has been taken no matter the circumstances.

The same people will support every military adventure that their government tells them means the difference between ….. and …..

Half of the country is cheering this decision and the other half is outraged by it. Gee what a great thing to throw at us just as Covid is dying and the war in Ukraine is ramping up. That this means anything to anyone in government just tells me that it’s another distraction, but one that comes with serious consequences for women. When is the last time a decision was leaked from the Supreme Court? Who leaked it and why? Twitter is saying that there were fences put up almost the minute this was leaked. It’s almost like someone knew it was going to happen.

Saw this after I posted my comment.

Glad to know that I’m not the only one wondering why this was leaked. I think the last leak from the SC was in 1919. Not sure if it’s true, but someone on DK looked into it and posted it.

up
19 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

janis b's picture

@snoopydawg

That would fit in to the almost 'daily drama’ agenda of distraction. I feel so sorry for the constant challenges to people’s sanity and wellbeing, and the ever present fight to survive.

up
17 users have voted.
Cassiodorus's picture

@snoopydawg

up
6 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

Cassiodorus's picture

@snoopydawg

Now, it's hard to say what's the distraction at this point -- the Supreme Court, Ukraine, the economy, or the fact that half the public is still wearing masks outdoors while the government tries to decide if the pandemic is over or not. It doesn't look like a strategy -- one thing might distract from another, but all of them are bad for Biden and the Democrats.

up
9 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

snoopydawg's picture

@snoopydawg

HuffPost above the fold has been Ukraine, Ukraine and Russia since the war started, but today it’s all about this decision and leak. And there are protests happening already. Welp it’s a good thing that they put up the fences so quickly ain’t it?

Oh yeah and below the fold we have Biden, Pelosi, Schumer and Bernie and AOC all promising that they will protect Roe. Gosh there’s no hurry since after Biden’s splendid legislation democrats won’t get blown out in the midterms. And ain’t it great that poor families still have that child tax credit? Oh wait.

up
8 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

janis b's picture

were bound together in neutrality. Will that concept prevail?

"Deliberations on controversial cases have in the past been fluid. Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate and major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and vote-trading, sometimes until just days before a decision is unveiled. The court’s holding will not be final until it is published, likely in the next two months ...

No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. The unprecedented revelation is bound to intensify the debate over what was already the most controversial case on the docket this term ...

Much of Alito’s draft is devoted to arguing that widespread criminalization of abortion during the 19th and early 20th century belies the notion that a right to abortion is implied in the Constitution ...

The Supreme Court remains one of Washington’s most secretive institutions, priding itself on protecting the confidentiality of its internal deliberations."

It all seems so contradictory.

up
11 users have voted.
TheOtherMaven's picture

@janis b

Matter of fact, the Supreme Court has been political since Marbury v. Madison (1803), which is when the Court arrogated to itself the power to declare actions or laws "unConstitutional".

(Most people don't know about Marbury v. Madison - it generally isn't taught in schools.)

up
10 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

@TheOtherMaven point. Most people reflexively accept the Court's power bc of long tradition from Marbury.. However the Con does give specific power to Congress -- Art III Section 2 -- to limit Scotus' appellate review, the types of "cases and controversies" it can review.

up
7 users have voted.
janis b's picture

@TheOtherMaven

for the lesson in history and context.

up
2 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@TheOtherMaven

Seeing as you are a history buff, could you weigh in on the accuracy of this essay? I know some of it is accurate, but I don’t remember much of the foreign history I learned way back last century.

https://canadianpatriot.org/2020/11/12/3832-2/

I do know that many Americans helped Hitler before and during the war, but…

Thanks.

up
3 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

janis b's picture

Wishing all harmony and sanity.

[video:https://youtu.be/76QguDCptgQ]

Slaap Lekker

up
10 users have voted.
lotlizard's picture

@janis b  
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWOmKMaGR1s]

up
5 users have voted.
janis b's picture

@lotlizard @lotlizard

But I’ll never forget those two words. I’ve always loved them as they translated to ’sleep deliciously’. My former husband's first language was Dutch and he always described anything delicious tasting as lekker, and often said that as a goodnight wish to our daughter. I like the expression even more than sweet dreams.

Thanks for the video, those are some sweet/lekker monsters ; ).

up
5 users have voted.
The Liberal Moonbat's picture

I am honestly surprised.

What's the GOP going to do for dependable votes from now on?

up
11 users have voted.

In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is declared mentally ill for describing colors.

Yes Virginia, there is a Global Banking Conspiracy!

Newsom: California should be a ‘sanctuary,’ helping out-of-state patients seeking abortion

Updated December 14, 2021

Hundreds of thousands of women seeking abortions could soon flood into California, and the state should maximize access for both in-state and out-of-state patients by helping cover the cost of the procedure as well as transportation, lodging, child care, food and lost wages.

Those were among the recommendations in a Wednesday report from the California Future of Abortion Council, which Gov. Gavin Newsom convened in September, shortly after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion laws forbidding the procedure after about six weeks of pregnancy.
...

Among the other recommendations from the governor’s panel:

  • Eliminate cost-sharing for abortion and abortion-related services for all insurance plans, and improve reimbursement rates for Medi-Cal, the state’s health care program for the poor.
  • Create a California Reproductive Scholarships Corps to strengthen abortion access in underserved areas, including regions primarily served by health systems with religious affiliations.
  • Explore ways to offer medication abortion services to out-of-state patients via telehealth.
  • Remove existing barriers to abortions later in pregnancy.
  • Enact legal protections for abortion patients and providers, including those who serve out-of-state patients.
  • Combat abortion misinformation and disinformation while ensuring schools and community-based organizations offer medically accurate, culturally relevant and inclusive abortion education.
  • Collect data, including on the effectiveness of public schools’ sexual health programs and the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on abortion services.
up
11 users have voted.

what they would do if given the chance. Expect them to take a sledgehammer to everything they railed against for all these decades. Expect the Democrats to vow to fight but fail to act. It took the republicans fifty years to reach this point. Maybe in fifty years the democrats will reach the same point, but they have to fight to get there.

Don't hold your breath. It feels like a huge, slow moving steam roller has been destroying everything that makes life worth living. Time and time again we voted for people to stop it and they didn't, or wouldn't. Worse, these same people condemned the the Left who would have fought back. I can only conclude the democrats are refusing to fight. Why? I don't know, but I do know whatever happens our pols will be exempt by virtue of wealth from what horrors they rain down on us.

up
13 users have voted.

yeas.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/10/plan-c-secret-optio...

I have a long history with this issue. I worked for a Family Planning Agency in PA during the 1970's where one of my jobs was to do reproductive choice counseling. After I had my own child, I joined the Board of the agency and eventually was Board President. For the last 7 years I have been on the board for a reproductive rights PAC in Kentucky working to support candidates for choice.

There are already states who have passed legislation to counter the expected ban by SCOTUS...

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/abortion-policy-absence-roe

"16 states and the District of Columbia have laws that protect the right to abortion.
4 states and the District of Columbia have codified the right to abortion throughout pregnancy without state interference.
12 states explicitly permit abortion prior to viability or when necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person."

This has come about because the generations of women beyond my generation took the right for granted (thus dropping the activism needed to preserve abortion rights) and because our government and Supeme Court has been totally co-opted by Christian Nationalists despite the fact that they are a monority in America and despite the fact that over 50% of the country thinks abortion should be legal.

I am hoping that there will be programs set up in states that allow abortion to get disenfranchised women from other states services, but it is possible that anti-abortion states will try to pass laws forbidding a women to go out of state for an abortion.

up
9 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

Cassiodorus's picture

@Fishtroller 02 Be sure your organizations have lawyers familiar with the case law substantiating this right.

up
4 users have voted.

"The war on Gaza, backed by the West, is a demonstration that the West is willing to cross all lines. That it will discard any nuance of humanity. That it is willing to commit genocide" -- Moon of Alabama

@Cassiodorus

who was discussing all the protections CT was putting into its law preserving the right to an abortion. They expanded the list of people who were allowed too provide abortions, and they put in a protection for women who traveled to CT from out of state because the governor was concerned about Texas prosecutors coming after those women. So it may a a Constitutional protection, but that won't stop states from trying to restrict travel for certain purposes. And, as we know, a guaranteed liberty is just a piece of paper.

up
4 users have voted.

"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin

It's a huge win for the status quo.

BTW, this is what is looks like on Zerohedge.

roe.PNG

up
11 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

Hey all you 3rd party voters who refused to vote for the Wall Street drenched warmonger who said that voting because of the Supreme Court didn’t matter I hope you are happy now. And that goes double for everyone who voted for Stein and Nadar. But it’s basically bernie's fault because he dared to run against the corporate sellouts.

2 guesses where I read that.

Hmmm

40917FAE-786B-4926-97E0-CECF652BB487.jpeg
up
12 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Can't we expect subsequent rulings to make abortion illegal in all fifty states?

but it's just non-expert thinking and will hope for better explanations from others.

The Court can only rule on the case presented, state law(s) restricting abortion or making it illegal, and usually confines its ruling to the matter at hand. If the Politico leak is accurate and in a month or so we see a ruling substantially reflecting what has been published today, we can expect a ruling that states can severely restrict or outlaw the procedure. But the ruling would still leave it open to states to permit it.

Further, it seems to me, outright outlawing the procedure everywhere would entail Scotus going beyond the scope of the case and nullifying the notion of a right to privacy found not only in Roe but in major Court rulings on contraception and marriage. Of course, if it should turn out that Alito writing for the majority also is going to rule that there is no implied right to privacy in the Constitution, then it's another matter entirely. But so far we just have his language, supposedly, about abortion not being mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Yes, and neither is marriage or contraception.

Meanwhile, we have Biden, Pelosi and Schumer declaring it's finally time to codify Roe into federal law. Assuming that bill somehow passes with Manchin around, then there would presumably be a clearer legal path to challenge any state law permitting it.

up
9 users have voted.

that the Dems didn't have a nearly 50 year period during which they held Congress and the White House for many years in which to pass a law on this topic. Oh wait . . .

up
8 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@MichaelSF

In a joint statement, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)—who has supported anti-choice Democrats and in 2017 opined that focusing on reproductive rights helped elect former President Donald Trump—said that “if the report is accurate, the Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years, not just on women but on all Americans.”

“The Republican-appointed justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v. Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history,” they added.

Connor Lamb is a blue dawg republican democrat who goes against what the democrats want to pass and yet when a better candidate comes up there’s Pelosi squashing them down and supporting the person who is anti abortion.

A week before the Barrett hearing a few democrats told the media that Feinstein was losing her faculties and then democrats gave her the gavel on them. She of course did a poor job and Barrett was confirmed. And then Feinstein gave Lindsay Graham a big hug. Dems did the bare minimum to keep her off the court. Pelosi left her quiver of arrows at home. They could have done things to slow it down until after the election. They wanted her on the court.

I think this goes farther than just Roe. Time will tell.

up
8 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

@snoopydawg When the democrats have a choice they reject the most left leaning candidate in favor of the right leaning candidate. They promise much, but refuse to deliver when they have the power. It's all just factions of the Corporate Party doing a Punch and Judy show for our benefit.

up
8 users have voted.

This article from Greenwald is helpful for people to read to better understand how we should move forward. We must codify the privacy rights. Period.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-irrational-misguided-discourse?s=w

up
10 users have voted.

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

snoopydawg's picture

@on the cusp

Besides the constitutionality of the ruling, Glenn points out that if they do this that it will mainly affect the poorer woman because the rich usually has enough money to travel to get one and the poor will turn to things that are unsafe. Just like they did before Roe.

But if women don’t get to own their bodies I think there are going to be other repercussions from the decision. Careful what you ask for because you might get it is something people should keep in mind. Gay marriage has been in the cross hairs for a few years and this might speed it up. I’d have to do some digging to find the article I read on this. It was before Google became a gatekeeper to information.

up
7 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

snoopydawg's picture

@on the cusp

Indeed, Millhiser's argument here — unelected Supreme Court Justices have no business mucking around in abortion rights — is supremely ironic given that it was unelected judges who issued Roe back in 1973, in the process striking down numerous democratically elected laws. Worse, this rhetoric perfectly echoes the arguments which opponents of Roe have made for decades: namely, it is the democratic process, not unelected judges, which should determine what, if any, limits will be placed on the legal ability to provide or obtain an abortion. Indeed, Roe was the classic expression of the above-described anti-majoritarian and anti-democratic values: seven unelected men (for those who believe such demographic attributes matter) struck down laws that had been supported by majorities and enacted by many states which heavily restricted or outright banned abortion procedures. The sole purpose of Roe was to deny citizens the right to enact the anti-abortion laws, no matter how much popular support they commanded.

This extreme confusion embedded in heated debates over the Supreme Court was perhaps most vividly illustrated last night by Waleed Shahid, the popular left-wing activist, current spokesman for the left-wing group Justice Democrats, and previously a top aide and advisor to Squad members including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Shahid — who, needless to say, supports Roe — posted a quote from Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural address, in 1861, which Shahid evidently believes supports his view that Roe must be upheld.

But the quote from Lincoln — warning that the Court must not become the primary institution that decides controversial political questions — does not support Roe at all; indeed, Lincoln's argument is the one most often cited in favor of overruling Roe. In fact, Lincoln's argument is the primary one on which Alito relied in the draft opinion to justify overruling Roe: namely, that democracy will be imperiled, and the people will cease to be their own rulers, if the Supreme Court, rather than the legislative branches, ends up deciding hot-button political questions such as abortion about which the Constitution is silent. Here's the version of the Lincoln pro-democracy quote, complete with bolded words, that Shahid posted, apparently in the belief that it somehow supports upholding Roe:

It is just inexplicable to cite this Lincoln quote as a defense of Roe. Just look at what Lincoln said: “if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, [then] the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.” That is exactly the argument that has been made by pro-life activists for years against Roe, and it perfectly tracks Alito's primary view as defended in his draft opinion.

Sounds like an argument for state’s rights.

up
6 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

@snoopydawg noted, putting it back in the hands of the states does put the issue closer to the voters, who are usually by most polls in a strong majority in favor of the right of women to have an abortion, as opposed to a group of unelected elites in robes.

If I'm not mistaken, way back, several left-leaning legal scholars came out against Roe on the grounds that it took away the growing momentum of the time (early 70s) in favor of affording such rights to women at the state level, while also helping the Right get organized and galvanized under the pro-life banner. Some also argued that Roe wouldn't prevent just what we might be seeing today, namely a more conservative Ct coming along later and reversing it in one fell swoop.

Iirc, early anti-Roe liberals included Alan Dershowitz, John Hart Ely (ex Law Dean of Stanford), and one Ruth Bader Ginsberg. In AD's case, he is now opposed to overruling Roe, I believe on the basis it has been too-long established as the law of the land (50 yrs). See his The Hill piece for an interesting take on the leaking of it etc. https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3475703-who-leaked-the-roe-draft-o...

up
7 users have voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@wokkamile

What impact would reversing Roe have on the integrity of the Supreme Court? If Roe were to be overruled, it would be only because three new justices were appointed by President Trump.  Nothing else has changed. Overruling a 50-year-old precedent, simply as a result of a change of personnel, would hurt the judicial concept of stare decisis (“let the decision stand”) and would constitute judicial activism by a court that purports to be conservative. It would increase the politicization of the high court and motivate Democrats toward court-packing. 

The Supreme Court as an institution has been weakened by this leak of a draft opinion. In my view, it would be further weakened by an ill-advised decision to overrule a 50-year-old precedent that has helped save the lives of countless pregnant women and girls.

This is my concern too. If abortion is deemed illegal then there will be unsafe procedures done and women and girls will start dying again. But only the ones who don’t have enough money to travel to where it’s still legal like rich women will do. I have always been torn on this issue but have remained firm that it should be left up to the woman to decide. Especially because so many might change their minds if this country had an adequate safety net for them. Instead it’s more just pro birth and then you’re on your own.

up
7 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

janis b's picture

Research has long made it clear that those who will suffer from these changes are overwhelmingly the poor, and in particular people of colour. Access to abortion will become a postcode lottery, and those who miss out will be the people who can least afford to. Women will lose control over decisions relating to their own autonomy, based purely on where they live ...

Wherever the political position lands, however – it must always remember that decisions like this can, and will, have a very real, very human cost.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/roe-to-go-and-why-theyve-got-it-wrong

up
1 user has voted.
snoopydawg's picture

@janis b

only effect the poor class and maybe that’s the point of their ruling? It’s definitely not for the child so it can have a chance at life because then government would make sure that women could take time off and be with the kid instead of having to go back to work ASAP. They’d also up the money for support systems. I’ve never understood why the pro birth crowd gives a damn about this issue when they abandon kids after they are born.

up
2 users have voted.

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

janis b's picture

@snoopydawg

"I’ve never understood why the pro birth crowd gives a damn about this issue when they abandon kids after they are born."

up
0 users have voted.