Roe vs Wade overturned

[Samson]

Well, it has happened:

Roe v Wade: US Supreme Court strikes down abortion rights

Millions of women in the US will lose the legal right to abortion, after the Supreme Court overturned a 50-year-old ruling that legalised it nationwide.
The court struck down the landmark Roe v Wade decision, weeks after an unprecedented leaked document suggested it favoured doing so.
The judgement will transform abortion rights in America, with individual states now able to ban the procedure.

Half of US states are expected to introduce new restrictions or bans.
Thirteen have already passed so-called trigger laws that will automatically outlaw abortion following the Supreme Court's ruling. A number of others are likely to pass new restrictions quickly.
In total, abortion access is expected to be cut off for about 36 million women of reproductive age, according to research from Planned Parenthood, a healthcare organisation that provides abortions.​

 

[Arakhor]

So, does SCOTUS have any self-respect left, given that it's not even pretending to be impartial arbiters of the law?

 

[sophie]

Concurring opinion from Thomas:

 

[Arakhor]

I notice that Thomas doesn't want to have a tilt at the precedents legalising mixed-race marriages. Now why would that be, do you think?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

They're coming for the lgbtq community next,
straight and cis people who are allies need to stand up and be counted, you can no longer sit on the fence and not side with the oppressors

 

[E.man]

... and relaxes had gun laws wasn't it ?

 

[GenMarshall]

I know this was posted in the SCOTUS thread, but I’m reposting this here as it’s more relevant to the thread.

Roe v Wade: US Supreme Court strikes down abortion right's

(The article itself is from the Associated Press hosted by a local news affiliate)

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Woah, that's insane. I can't believe it actually happened

 

[EgonSpengler]

I wish I could pretend to be shocked by any of this. Even without that leaked draft of the Dobbs opinion, this was all fairly predictable. A 6-3 supermajority on the Court is what Conservatives have been working toward. It's why Mitch McConnell brazenly refused to have hearings on Merrick Garland. That wasn't some sort of principled stand; this is precisely what he had in mind, the whole time (and it was obvious, everybody knew it, I'm not claiming to have any special insight).

In terms of abortion rights, I expect that overturning Roe v Wade is only the beginning. I imagine the pro-life side is thinking about how to get some kind of federal ban enacted. Merely leaving it up to the States won't be enough for them, they can't possibly leave us alone now, this is just their first victory. The zombies are coming for us, wherever we live.

 

[JollyRoger]

Given some of the reasoning in the opinion, Brown v. Board of Education should be at risk, but I think in reality, they have gone as far as they are going to go. Could be 50 years away from restoring Roe.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I had a look at the map.

It is going to be more than a road trip, more like a flight for those ladies in Louisiana seeking termination.

I wonder if there will be floating abortion units on boats outside the twelve mile limit.

 

[IglooDame]

I had a look at the map.

It is going to be more than a road trip, more like a flight for those ladies in Louisiana seeking termination.

I wonder if there will be floating abortion units on boats outside the twelve mile limit.

If they do it for gambling they'll certainly do it for medical procedures. But I thought at least one state's new anti-abortion law criminalized going out of state for it in some way. I may be thinking of an anti-trans law, or just mistaking a nightmare while I was sleeping for what I see on the evening news again (the two are getting less easy to distinguish).

 

[Paul in Saudi]

We surely live in interesting times.

 

[JollyRoger]

Some states will try to ban crossing state lines or transporting a woman across state lines for such a procedure, I'm sure. Universal carry to term.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

So, does SCOTUS have any self-respect left, given that it's not even pretending to be impartial arbiters of the law?

I think that shipped a while ago.

 

[JollyRoger]

So this is what a ruthless Supreme Court looks like.

 

[uppi]

Some states will try to ban crossing state lines or transporting a woman across state lines for such a procedure, I'm sure. Universal carry to term.

Would that not infringe on the right to freedom of movement? SCOTUS would clearly strike down such a law ... oh, wait, oh...

 

[The_J]

This is definitely going way to many steps backwards.

 

[Joij21]

Would that not infringe on the right to freedom of movement? SCOTUS would clearly strike down such a law ... oh, wait, oh...

Freedom of movement isn't even a right in the US. There is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly says it's a right. So therefore yes, they could at least in theory contain you.

Remember after Pearl Harbor Japanese Americans were deported to internment camps on suspicion of being spies for Japan. Also Native Americans were forcefully evicted and removed from their lands onto reservations. And before slavery's abolishment, if a slave tried to run away from the slave shack he could be shot no questions asked. So the US already has a long legal precedent of totally not seeing movement as a fundamental right.

The Supreme Court could just reaffirm this and it would be a massive dog whistle to states to pass laws that restrict movement in relation to abortions.

 

[EnglishEdward]

If they do it for gambling they'll certainly do it for medical procedures.

Perhaps they will go to the local native american reservation.