Social Question

Demosthenes's avatar

What do you make of the leaked SCOTUS draft opinion on overturning Roe v. Wade?

Asked by Demosthenes (13562points) 2 weeks ago

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/02/1096053620/supreme-court-roe-wade-leaked-draft-opinion-politico

A draft is not a final ruling, but do you think the majority conservative Court is likely to overturn Roe v. Wade? Will this eventually lead to a nationwide abortion ban or will it simply leave the decision up to the states? How will red states prevent people from getting abortions in neighboring states?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

90 Answers

filmfann's avatar

It will result in the automatic end of abortion in more than a dozen states.
It looks legit. Trump voters are to blame.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

It’s what the extreme right has wanted for a long time.
Your country continues to scare the shit out of me in so many ways.

jca2's avatar

I’m glad I live in a state which enacted protections to combat this just in case the law is overturned. I do feel bad, however, for people who can’t afford to travel to a state such as NY. The saddest part is that it’s the babies and children that will suffer – babies born to mothers who don’t want them, can’t afford them, etc. People say “they can just give them up for adoption.” However, many don’t give them up for adoption, for various reasons. CPS cases will go up. Really sad.

HP's avatar

I doubt if anyone is either surprised or outraged that such a document exits. No other issue is so responsible for the acrimony and venom around Scotus judicial candidates. If the document proves authentic, the career of anyone responsible for its leak is probably over. Realistically, of course, the overturning of Roe vs. Wade will only serve to strengthen the divide in the country as the clampdown exclusive to the Bible belt states guarantees that donations to planned parenthood rocket through the roof. As for the prevention of interstate travel for the purpose of abortion, states rights devotees are clearly up a tree. Abortion will simply continue as it has all along——another one of those laws that is in effect class restrictive. When people talk about muffling all discussion of critical race theory, it is never appreciated exactly how critical the necessity to suppress and restrict black folks to the formulation of the country’s laws. It is no coincidence that this fight to hamstring poor women is an ironclad motive now nearly exclusive to our former Confederacy. The land which mastered the necessary techniques at the close of Reconstruction. Let the court embarrass both itself and the country. They are certainly going to need some rather convincing and careful rhetoric to defend such egregious and indisputably regressive return to the days of back alleys and coat hangers. It makes sense that there will be many a necessary draft. There are probably dozens floating on laptops in the building, and have been for years. Like those class laws themselves, it’s practice, practice, practice.

ragingloli's avatar

I clearly remember right wingers trying to convince me, that no one intends to overturn Roe vs Wade, when Agent Orange was appointed. Yet here we are, as expected.
And you know they are not going to stop at abortion.
Contraception, gay marriage, interracial marriage, they are all next.
I can also guarantee that once back in power, they will go for a national ban on abortion.
The slide down into theocracy ruled by the Christian Taliban continues apace.

JLeslie's avatar

The article says limiting abortion to 15 weeks, but also says living it up to the states, so does that mean at the federal level an abortion could not be done after 15 weeks and states Can completely outlaw abortion?

Approximately 90% of abortions are done in under 15 weeks. I’m not defending the decision, I’m just saying that parameter captures most abortions, so it’s more of an attack on mid to late term abortions, but obviously the slippery slope is there. Everyone I know who had a second trimester abortion there was something very wrong with the pregnancy. I hope that doesn’t really get taken away, but who knows.

So many people are so ignorant about what can go wrong in pregnancy and the religious right constantly sends around stories of doctors telling women to abort, and they refused and their child was perfectly normal. I’m sure most of those stories are totally fabricated.

I agree with whichever jelly said if the states are able to completely outlaw it, several states will do it right away. Luckily, I’m past baby making age. People need to get much better at birth control. I know sometimes BC fails, but mostly it doesn’t.

Interestingly, it’s possible this could work against the Republicans. Fewer liberal babies will be aborted if abortion is outlawed. Unless they plan on stealing those babies from their mothers, the ballot box in 20 years will possibly have more blue in it.

seawulf575's avatar

I make that
(1) Someone is breaking the law by stealing this draft and leaking it to the MSM so that it can create political pressure
(2) The article even says that the 1st draft is not the final ruling and that often things change during the hearings and deliberations.
(3) all else is speculation

If you want my speculation on the matter, I’d say that it is likely they will come up with some sort of middle ground on the matter. I suspect Roe and, more significantly, Casey will be pared down quite a bit but won’t be overturned entirely. I believe that the overall effect of this ruling will be to change the Constitutional part of these cases so that the SCOTUS doesn’t have to see the next 1000 cases brought up because someone doesn’t like a new abortion law or challenge. It will put more strength back to the states to decide what is reasonable for abortion in their eyes….whether it is more restrictions or less. It won’t stop people from taking abortion vacations but might mean they have to travel farther.

flutherother's avatar

“It is time to return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Even better: return the issue of abortion to the person concerned.

KNOWITALL's avatar

It’s interesting but I expect there will be less change than some think. Most states have legislated for or against already.
I did read yesterday Amazon is offering employees up to $4k for healthcare that requires travel which includes abortion.

elbanditoroso's avatar

We knew this was coming. No surprise.

The Supreme Court is now a wing of the republican party. It used to have indepedence. Now it is just another political tool.

Sad for America.

Welcome to the Taliban States of America.

janbb's avatar

I can’t believe that anyone is surprised by this.

gondwanalon's avatar

FYI: 24% of Democrats are pro-life (2021 Gallup Pole). And about that many Republicans are pro-choice.

zenvelo's avatar

Not at all unexpected, but demonstration of why voting in the mid terms is important to hold on to the House and get a clear majority in the Senate.

kritiper's avatar

Not too surprising, if true. For a long time it looked like they would make illegal abortions a fact again. So sad.

Forever_Free's avatar

The vote is not a surprise to me.
The leak further proves that media outlets will do anything to grab attention to themselves.

Jaxk's avatar

A very scary event. The sanctity of the Supreme Court has been breached. This leak is a first in my memory and opens the door to political maneuvering from our highest court. We’ve grown accustomed to leaks from every level of government but the court has remained immune to this sort of corruption until now. Once the trust has been lost, the same corruption seen throughout our government is now prevalent in the court as well. I don’t know if we can recapture that trust.

As for the ruling, it is merely a draft and doesn’t tell us the final outcome once the votes are cast. Even if they go the way of the draft, it means the decision will go back to the States. I suspect only a couple of states will actually outlaw abortion. Mainly it will be a limit on late term abortions.

It’s sad that things went this way but it seems to be the product of our ’ win at any cost’ culture.

chyna's avatar

^This. Exactly.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@Jaxk to be honest, the so-called sanctity of the Supreme Court had been eroding for decades, with their decisions blurring the lines on church and state, prayer in public spaces, citizens united on campiagn financing and dozens of other examples.

THis is the nail in the coffin for the first amendment

Demosthenes's avatar

The circus around nominations and hearings for those nominees already told me this institution was eroding. That said, the fact that a couple of the so-called conservative justices disappointed many conservatives by deciding in favor of LGBT workplace protections made me think the Court was not so partisan after all. Nonetheless, I am with those who don’t expect many states to actually outlaw abortion (some functionally already have). I do not think a nationwide ban is coming, so those who either want that or fear that are overestimating the effect of this potential decision.

Caravanfan's avatar

Well, this has been the long game of the political Right since Reagan so absolutely no surprise that they’re considering it. The fact that it was leaked is shocking. I’m not sure I agree with @seawulf575 in saying that the leak is illegal, but it certainly is a breakdown of sanctity of the Court process.

HP's avatar

I too seriously doubt any illegality in the release of the document, but certainly acknowledge the unprecedented breach of trust and the suicide martyrdom of the career of some otherwise star bound brilliant clerk. It will be interesting to see (if the document is authentic) whether the villain (or hero) is capable of or even desires to cover his or her tracks.

filmfann's avatar

I agree that the leak of this document is a terrible violation of the trust of the Court, but I can see reasons why either side would leak this.

si3tech's avatar

Regrdless of the decision, our sacred trust in privacy no longer exists because of leaker!

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

I am angry! I’m angry that Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. I am furious that the right-wing jerks are more upset about the leak than they are that precedent is being overturned. Where is the right-wing’s insistence on individual liberty?! It reminds me that they only believe in individual liberty when it aligns with their tastes.

Smashley's avatar

It’s plainly inevitable that Roe v Wade will be overturned. I think most of us knew this as soon as RGB’s perfectly mistimed death.

I’m sad that there will be a period of turmoil that will mean real death and sadness spreading across certain states. However, now that republicans are the dog who caught the car, they must be held accountable for the real outcomes of their ideology. Hold fast everyone, the conversation become real now, not mired in theoretical bullshit.

As far as the leak… I think it guarantees reform in the future, and anger in the present. The court won’t change its opinion after the leak, or else be viewed as too political, so instead they will hew to their original, party line votes. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, so they will.

Forever_Free's avatar

If anything comes of this, I hope that the Republicans can finally decide which parts of the body belong to individuals and what part belong to the Republicans.
Just sayin’

si3tech's avatar

@Demosthenes I cannot tell you of my total loss of belief in the sacred US Supreme Court. The leaker should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Notice I say nothing about the decision! The complete, utter violation of the highest court in the land. This person, no doubt swore to follow the rules.

JLoon's avatar

Oh my.

The Supreme Court.

Leaking decisions before
ruling.

On abortion.

Dear me.

What I make of this is more or less what everyone else has said – with one exception, and a prediction.

First as seen in other comments here, almost no one who’s followed the latest arguments on abortion should really be surprised that the Court seems poised to overturn or limit the precedent in Roe v Wade. You could read the forecast for this shitstorm in Farmers Almanac. No shock and certainly no awe.

But as far the fear and loathing over “breach of confidentiality” at our Sacred Temple of Law – wise up folks, it’s happened before and in fact goes on all the time. It’s just that in most cases none of us pay attention, and most of the time The Supremes flat out lie about how they do their business and what influences them.

In 1832 Andrew Jackson knew in advance that the Supreme Court would rule in favor of protecting Cherokee native land in Georgia, because of information shared with Congressmen and local newspapers:

Cherokee Indian Cases
https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/cherokee-indian-cases-cherokee-nation-v-georgia-5-peters-1-1831-worcester-v-georgia-6-peters-515

In 1856 Chief Justice Roger Taney delayed the decision in the Dred Scott case after private meetings with pro-slavery Democrats:

Dred Scott – The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision
https://www.americanheritage.com/dred-scott-supreme-courts-worst-decision

And in case after case, from 1919 to this morning – on every issue from liquor distilleries to Obamacare – sources inside the Court have gossiped, signaled, and leaked details about their deliberations :

How Rare is a Supreme Court Breach?
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-draft-opinion-00029475

What it means is that the illusion of Supreme Court sanctity is just that, an illusion. It’s a political institution, created and maintained by political processes, and subject to political influence for better and for worse.

Where all this is heading is toward the usual reaction, rejection, and reform when government institutions fail. Latest polls show public support for legal abortion at over 70% :
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/03/how-americans-really-feel-about-abortion-the-sometimes-surprising-poll-results-as-supreme-court-reportedly-set-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/?sh=16f5c5057ac1

A decision to overturn Roe will be the high water mark of a jacked-up extremist “conservative” agenda that invades the most personal areas of private life, while claiming to support “small government” and family values. Within the next five years the public will have seen enough, and had enough. Major changes to the courts and to government will begin.

gorillapaws's avatar

Government so small it fits in every woman’s vagina.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@JLoon I hope your prediction is correct.

I saw one survey today that 60% of Americans want R v W to be retained. I don’t see how the Supreme Court makes decisions that 60% people are going to dislike.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

~ ~ ~ ~ I’m of the opinion that if you are not straight, white, Baptist and member of NRA; you will be tracked down by the GOP in the future ! ! !

KNOWITALL's avatar

On the bbc today, if you scroll down, there’s an interesting map of legislation by state. It appears that more states are becoming hostile to the procedure. That’s actually a lot more of the US than I realized.

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-61309516

Dutchess_III's avatar

I believe Kansas, of all states, put something in place that will uphold a woman’s right to an abortion, even if R v W is overturned.

JLeslie's avatar

I just saw a map on the TV that showed which states will instantly make abortion illegal if the supreme overturns Roe v. Wade. What does that mean? That those states already have laws that make it illegal, but can’t currently enforce them, because of the prior Supreme Court decision?

Florida, by the way, just had a change in our abortion law with the stroke of DeSantis’ pen. The way I understand it, no abortion after 15 weeks, except for the life of the mother or serious fetal abnormalities. Those two things are what worry me the most, so I’m glad those exceptions are there, but still I think all these laws limiting abortion make it scarier for doctors to perform abortions in general. Supposedly, FL won’t change from this new law if Roe is overturned, at least not automatically.

Demosthenes's avatar

@KNOWITALL Yeah, probably just gonna be the West Coast, the Northeast, Colorado, and Illinois eventually. Interesting about Montana as I think of it as being fairly conservative.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Desmosthenes Just remember there are a lot of secular Pro-Lifers. They just don’t get much, if any, attention.

jca2's avatar

@Caravanfan: I just googled it and the pro-lifers say that about 12% of pro-lifers are secular.

Caravanfan's avatar

@KNOWITALL Those are not secular. For example, from your link: “Our pro-life work as Catholics can be even more effective when we partner with our fellow pro-life feminists, including those in secular organizations. As Catholics, we believe that God has written the natural law on all human consciences, which means that secular feminists can (and do) also understand the importance of upholding human dignity from womb to tomb. This truth should empower us to connect with our secular friends and share our passion for pro-life feminism.”

Caravanfan's avatar

Can you think of one person you know who is for government mandated forced birth and also an atheist? Just one.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Caravanfan The Catholic author of the article is sharing the secular groups.

Well yes. Check out the New ProLife Movement. They are anti-Trump and welcoming to all. https://www.ncronline.org/news/justice/new-pro-life-movement-no-trump-yes-atheists

Caravanfan's avatar

@KNOWITALL Not good enough. You’re pointing to a never trumper government mandated forced birth program that welcome atheists. So what? I’m asking if you. Personally. Know anybody who is an atheist and pro-government mandated forced birth?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Caravanfan Sure, its not just Gods people that think killing babies is wrong.
Do you think all Downs or rape babies are born to Christian families?

Caravanfan's avatar

That’s a straw man. I asked if you, personally, know any pro-government mandated forced birth athiests.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Just to be clear my neighbor decided to have her baby conceived by rape by another neighbor. That boy grew up with a great life and children of his own. They are not religious in any way. His name is Michael.

That enough or do you want to hear about the atheist hooker who had her son and adopted him out? Her name is Debbie.

ragingloli's avatar

They chose. They were not forced.

gorillapaws's avatar

@KNOWITALL Do you understand that it’s possible for someone to be both (1) pro-choice and (2) also believe they would never personally have an abortion?

Dutchess_III's avatar

@gorillapaws, that is exactly my middle daughter’s stance.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@gorillapaws Yes.

Do you understand that the reality of what an abortion is sometimes changes minds of those who are Pro Choice?

Dutchess_III's avatar

What is your idea of the “reality” @KNOWITALL?

Caravanfan's avatar

@KNOWITALL Would your neighbor force another to take a pregnancy to term against their will?

Caravanfan's avatar

Anywho back to the point at hand, the primary result of this will be that poor women will be forced to have babies while more well off women will be able to take time off from work to travel to other states get either medical or surgical abortions.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III Well I’ve been to pregnancy care centers many times, watched the abortion videos, as my family is very involved in this issue.
Forgive my analogy, but having your dog put down is far different than using the gun yourself. In that way, the requirement of watching it has changed many from ProChoice to ProLife.

@Caravanfan They don’t have the legal authority to do so, so no.

elbanditoroso's avatar

I think that @KNOWITALL and others are talking around the more fundamental issue.

- Yes, I am sure that there are women – even many women – who change their minds when facin the reality of an abortion. (which is what @Knowitall said)

and

Yes – I am sure that there are many, many women who say “thank god I had the abortion because now I can get my life together” or something similar.

But in each case it was the woman herself who changed her mind. Either direction, the women had the personal autonomy to make that decision for herself.

This Supreme Court decision takes any autonomy from women. It puts the state in charge of women’s bodies. That sucks.

Caravanfan's avatar

@KNOWITALL Okay, that’s an evasion and you know it. Let me rephrase: “Would your neighbor be in favor of a law written by politicians that would force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will?”

Dutchess_III's avatar

What does my dog have to do with anything??
And what did those abortion videos show? A mass of unselfaware cells being sucked up, or an actual baby being torn limb from limb?

Caravanfan's avatar

@KNOWITALL And let me just add one more question. Would your friend be in favor of laws that would criminalize decisions of women to travel to other states having abortion and of laws to criminalize anybody who aids them (like an Uber driver)?

And would your friend be in favor of laws that would put physicians in jail for prescribing meds that can be used for abortion?

These are NOT rhetorical questions. These are laws that are currently pending.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Caravanfan I have no idea if she would or would not.

@Dutchess_III It was babies cringing away from suction tubes, while they were torn apart.
Its mandatory in my state, last I heard, to get counseling first for knowlegeable consent.

@elbanditoroso It was leaked to elicit this response from you. It’s not decided.

Caravanfan's avatar

@KNOWITALL Well, you’re the one who brought her up as an example of a pro-government manded forced birth secular person, so I’m following up on that. Fiine, let me pivot:

How do YOU feel about:

1) Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will
2) The fact that the burden of the new laws will fall on the poor
3) Criminalizing women who decide to travel to a state where freedom is more important
4) Criminalizing physicians who want to provide good medical care to their patients?
5) Fining an Uber driver for carrying a pregnant women across state lines to get her abortion.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I wish these Pro lifers would fight this hard for the unwanted kids that are here ,instead of the unborn ones that are not.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 I know many here who have and its a racket. You’re looking at $100k at least, to adopt two unwanted children. Pro-Lifers are not to blame for a greedy government agency.
That doesn’t even count home inspections, background checks, pysch evals. My friend almost lost his mind in the process, it defonately needs reformed.

@Caravanfan I think those laws are too much. Nothing I say will ease your anger, as I know you perform these procedures from past conversations.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Of course. 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are always what the Republicans point to in this debate. The VAST majority of abortions happen in the 1st trimester before the embryo is capable of cringing or even has limbs.

Caravanfan's avatar

@KNOWITALL I haven’t performed an abortion in 30 years. And even then was just a resident.

The thing is, that’s what the laws are doing, and that’s the reality.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Exactly @Dutchess_III Late term abortions are only mainly done when the health or life of the mother are in great jeopardy, NOT like uh my due date is in 2 weeks and I have changed my mind type thing.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Caravanfan Oh I thought the clinics were recent.
But we havent discussed for some time.

Yeah I didnt vote or advocate for those laws. Live and let live.

seawulf575's avatar

I think that one thing people are forgetting is that even IF RvW is overturned, it doesn’t mean abortions are outlawed. It means the decisions on such things falls back to the states. Yes, there are some states that might outlaw it. There are some that will put some restrictions on it. And there are some that will allow it for any reason whatsoever with no restrictions at all. And if you don’t like what your state decides, it is MUCH easier to change the laws than if it is at the federal level.

Dutchess_III's avatar

All states will put reasonable restrictions on abortions.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@seawulf575 I hope that at least more will build the safety net into the budget like ours will, rather than the weird Texas hardline response.
I mean have you seen the price on baby formula lately? $38 for Similac, one plant got shut down up north for bacteria so its high dollar. Not a good situation here for mama’s.

Caravanfan's avatar

@KNOWITALL Mamas should breastfeed. it’s free.

smudges's avatar

All states will put reasonable restrictions on abortions.

Not sure where you got the idea that states will put ‘reasonable’ restrictions on abortions. Louisiana, for example, has laws ready to go which say “There will be no exceptions for pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest. The only exception will be to save the life of a pregnant person.” Not to mention the current misdemeanor which will become a felony for M.D.s to prescribe the morning after pill.

@Caravafan Not that I disagree, but stating that “Mamas should breastfeed” is simply another ‘should’. It would be more appropriate to say that a better choice would be to breastfeed. Not wanting to start anything, but those ‘shoulds’ are what got us into the whole R v. Wade to begin with – people saying women ‘should’ go through with their pregnancies. just sayin’

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So states like Louisiana say NOPE rape and incest don’t count as a reason for an abortion!??
So to these states women are nothing more than an incubator.
I would like one of these idiots to tell a fourteen year old sorry you were raped but you have to carry it to term.
Things like this make me extra glad I am a CANADIAN!

Caravanfan's avatar

@smudges I’m a doctor. I can and will say the word “should” when it is appropriate as it’s literally my job to help people improve their health. And the benefits of breastfeeding over formula feeding is noncontroversial. just sayin’

Dutchess_III's avatar

But, for whatever reason, some women can’t @Caravanfan. I’m a mom who breast fed her babies exclusively for 18 months each. But I also know I was privileged.

Caravanfan's avatar

@Dutchess_III Yes. I understand. That’s why I said the word “should” as opposed to the word “must.” People “must” stop smoking. Women “should” breastfeed.

smudges's avatar

@Caravanfan I know you’re a doctor. You took much offense where none was intended, and I made that very clear several times in what I wrote. I even agreed with you about breastfeeding; I know it’s better.

My point was that it’s not up to you or anyone else to tell women (or anyone else) what they should do. That’s what this whole R v. Wade is about. Period. Don’t you get that? And no one must do anything.

So. . .with all due respect, which I gave you in the previous post. . .I suggest that you let this go, as I’m going to, because there was no ill intent or disrespect intended or conveyed.

Caravanfan's avatar

Anyway, back to the point at hand, this opinion should be a suprise to nobody. Every since the late ‘70s, abortion as been the wedge issue for the Christian right and was not an insignificant piece of getting the South to flip from Democratic to Republican during the Reagan years. In the early ‘70s the right to abortion was relatively agreed upon by both Republican and Democratic intellectual elite. But Jerry Fallwell and the Moral Majority made it a primary issue and started the long game of getting a SCOTUS that would be amenable to overturing Roe. This is the end result of that.

An argument has been made that Roe was a bad decision as it put a clamp on the natural progression of eliminating anti-abortion legislation across the country. Personally, I don’t buy it. I think SCOTUS needs to be there to eliminate laws that are plainly unconstitutional. A recent example would be legalizing gay marriage. If SCOTUS hadn’t ruled on this then there would still be states where people would not be allowed to marry other people that they love.

If you leave abortion laws to the discretion of the states what that will mean is what I wrote above. Women who have money can travel to a free state. Women who are poor will not.

ragingloli's avatar

This “natural progression” thing is in general just nonsense.
Every modern social achievement we have today has been fought for, with many literally dying for the cause.
The abolition of slavery, legal equality for black people, women’s right to vote, unions, workers’ rights, the 5 day 40hr work week, environmental protections, interracial and gay marriage, abortion. Feel free to add to the list.
All of it had to be wrought from the oppressors with blood, sweat and tears, because they sure as hell were not going to just give it to them “eventually”.

JLeslie's avatar

You can’t let states decide these things. If we let states decide everything we would probably still have legal segregation in some places.

ragingloli's avatar

@JLeslie
You would still have slavery in the south.

Caravanfan's avatar

Yes. I agree with @ragingloli completely, although I quibble with details. Slavery was outlawed by Federal law and Constitutional Amendment. There is no Federal law against abortion (in fact the Hyde Amemendment is still in effect that is anti-abortion). The 14th Amemdment was used a legal precedent for Roe but that’s arguable in court. Ultimately what will outlaw abortion laws in the US is either a SCOTUS affirmation of Roe (which obviously isn’t happening) or a Federal law that is passed by Congress (which won’t happen because the Democrats do not have a filibuster proof majority).

So this will lead to the end result of my post above where rich people can have abortions and poor people can not.

JLeslie's avatar

I agree with @Caravanfan that the poor will have more difficulty getting an abortion, especially a safe one. People with money will travel wherever they need to go. Also, I would say teenagers are at high risk too if they feel they can’t tell their parents they are pregnant. They might do risky unsafe abortions also.

@ragingloli I almost wrote that, but some people argue slavery would not have lasted into the 20th century, but who knows. I do think segregation would have stayed in place for a long long time, and likely until today in at least some locations. It still sort of exists now in some places in the US, but it’s not the law.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Enough said
Right-wingers trying to overthrow Democracy

seawulf575's avatar

Right wingers trying to overthrow Democracy? Who is protesting the SCOTUS and the Justices even in their personal homes? It isn’t the right wingers. And isn’t the SCOTUS a key part of our Democratic Republic? And was it a right winger that leaked the draft opinion? Highly unlikely. So who is REALLY trying to overthrow democracy?

gorillapaws's avatar

@seawulf575 “And was it a right winger that leaked the draft opinion? Highly unlikely.”

Actually, it’s likely that this was from one of the most conservative justices (or their staff). The idea is this would “lock in” the draft version as written, because any changes that soften/limit the opinion would be viewed as the Supreme Court bowing to political pressure instead of “following the Constitution.”

Smashley's avatar

@seawulf575 – yes SCOTUS is a key part of our democratic republic. And it has been undermined by politics, which is exactly what is what created to prevent. This has been the main political project of the republican’s party and conservatives in general for 50 years. I think the Supreme Court is a necessary cooling fan on hot political winds that has sustained our republic far more often than is appreciated. The fact that it has been purposefully undermined is what is destroying the democracy.

seawulf575's avatar

@gorillapaws That is really a stretch. Because releasing it puts more political pressure on the court, not less. Every time the SCOTUS deliberates on a case they create initial drafts of opinions and then talk through them. The final version is almost NEVER like the original. Sometimes it is the exact opposite. Releasing this did nothing for the justices except bring more pressure.

seawulf575's avatar

@Smashley All correct except it hasn’t been just the conservatives that have focused on the court. BOTH parties have tried to pack it with justices that are closer to their ideology for that past 50 years.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther