Oh states will certainly try. And that will cause some short-term disruption that will be life-altering for the people affected.
But I was hypothesizing about long-term, after those laws have been challenged and the challenges appealed.
Iāll have to actually read this decision, but I think R v W has always stood on somewhat flimsy ground.
Iām generally supportive of abortion-rights, and I hate the current makeup of the SCOTUS, and I expect a lot of bad rulings going forward. But I donāt expect a lot to be overturned beyond this. But who knows? Iām not a scholarā¦ Iām curious what others think?
Also, to respond to one of your questions though, I think this is the result of elections. Specifically, itās the result of a minority of people controlling the Senate, and wrongfully empowering the Senate to control the SCOTUS, and wrongfully tapping the SCOTUS to enact their preferred ruling.
1 Like
:exams:
It is definitely going to be weird if we get radically different laws in the slave statesā¦
If you have a car and gas moneyā¦ or can afford a bus to another state, possibly multiple times for those states that require a waiting period after initial consultation.
At 25 miles/gallon on my pretty decent car it would take me $48 (assumed $4/gal) in gas to reach the border of the nearest state, $96 round-trip. Assuming I only needed one trip.
Youāre still acting like justices make all of these decisions purely on the merits. Thatās obviously false.
5 Likes
You also need to be able to take time off work, potentially unpaid. And pay for the procedure. And leave any other responsibilities you may have for several days. And if youāre there more than one day, lodging and food would add to the cost.
If youāre living paycheck to paycheck, this could be really dire.
3 Likes
Iāve been reading several lawyers opinions about this draft, and many think this decision is teeing up a challenge to Obergefell. It directly critiques the cases that informed the Obergefell decision. So gay marriage might have been nice while we had it.
2 Likes
I dunno, gay marriage would be pretty hard to take away now because youād have thousands of people with standing to challenge it and itās a pretty black and white unequal protection under the law w.r.t taxation.
I wonder what this means for the charities that mail pills to women in need, is it illegal to mail something that induces a medical procedure that is illegal? Iām guessing so but honestly donāt know.
I didnāt even think of this, but there are already people arguing that position. Marriage for all was legalized largely because it was an individual decision and not a government one. Abortion is being removed as an individual choice and made into a government one.
Yep, thatās not trivial for some people.
I have to wonder about mailing or transporting pills into states with abortion bans instead of patients traveling out of state.
Yes, the first is illegal and the second isnāt (we hope), but ā¦
1 Like
I think you underestimate this particular court.
1 Like
Eh, I donāt think itās universally true. But I think a lot of the Republican appointees consider themselves originalists. And on this particular issue I think Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett would rule as such. And the three Democratic appointees are going to go along with whatever keeps the most access to abortion. I see Kavanaugh and Thomas as the only possible dissentions, and even those are not clear to me.
I suppose this could lead to criminalizing sodomy again. Or more obviously, contraception.
Itās a major step backwards. This court sucks ass.
Well contraception would run up against PPACA in that in most cases insurance is required to pay for it.
Requiring insurers to pay for an illegal product is a scenario that would surely get to the SCOTUS.
Pretty sure this court would over turn that in a fetal heartbeat. Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Barret for sure. Not sure if Roberts still thinks heās Angel Hernandez or not though.
1 Like
Eh. I think the SCOTUS would sooner overturn obamacare than care about your argument.
Hmmm, I guess insurance isnāt required to pay for condoms. Maybe they could make condoms illegal.
But in all honestyā¦ I donāt think anyone wants that. Probably even including most people who think theyāre sinful.
Too many people on both sides of the political aisle are engaging in heterosexual extramarital sex that they do not wish to result in pregnancy (or any kind of sex that they donāt wish to result in disease contraction) to pass something like that.
Letās not forget that first and foremost our Congress Critters are a self-interested lot.
I donāt think it was any secret that RvW was on pretty shaky ground, regardless of how supportive the country is generally of the right to an abortion. So I donāt think we can necessarily conclude the court is simply running towards theocracy regardless of the merits.