Overturning Roe V Wade

[SomeRandom]

So I’m sure many have heard that the Supreme Court is mulling over whether or not to overturn Roe V Wade. It looks like they are, that’s what the news stations are saying anyway

But as a non American I fear I may not fully understand the implications.

So can you help me out a bit here guys?

What does that hypothetical scenario look like in the long run?

Can it be legally challenged?

Why would this be decided by your Supreme Court in the first place? This is like a constitution thing, is that right?

And do you think this will set off a chain reaction of some kind?
I can only imagine the protests that would occur if something similar happened in literally any other Western Nation today.

 

[pearl]

So I’m sure many have heard that the Supreme Court is mulling over whether or not to overturn Roe V Wade. It looks like they are, that’s what the news stations are saying anyway

It seems almost a done deal, I heard Alito has already written the Opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems almost a done deal, I heard Alito has already written the Opinion.

Supreme Court apparently to overturn Roe, draft opinion shows: Report
Excerpted...
An apparent draft Supreme Court opinion obtained by Politico shows the panel's conservative majority of justices is ready to overturn nearly 50 years of established abortion rights precedent since Roe v. Wade.

The document, which Politico said it obtained from a "person familiar with the court's proceedings," is marked "first draft" and dated Feb. 10, 2022 -- two months after oral arguments were heard in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. ABC News has not independently confirmed the draft.

"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start," writes Justice Samuel Alito, the opinion's apparent author, in a copy of the draft posted online.

MORE: Conservative Supreme Court majority appears inclined to scale back abortion rights
The leak is an extraordinary breach of Supreme Court protocol and tradition. Never before has such a consequential draft opinion been leaked to the public before publication.

Reached by ABC News, a Supreme Court spokeswoman declined to comment.

 

[Altfish]

Welcome back to the 19th Century, of back street abortions and women's health affected by ectopic pregnancies, rape, incest. If this passes it will be awful.

Nobody wants abortions, but there are good reasons not to ban them

 

[Kenny]

So I’m sure many have heard that the Supreme Court is mulling over whether or not to overturn Roe V Wade. It looks like they are, that’s what the news stations are saying anyway

But as a non American I fear I may not fully understand the implications.

So can you help me out a bit here guys?

What does that hypothetical scenario look like in the long run?

Can it be legally challenged?

Why would this be decided by your Supreme Court in the first place? This is like a constitution thing, is that right?

And do you think this will set off a chain reaction of some kind?
I can only imagine the protests that would occur if something similar happened in literally any other Western Nation today.

Basically, at that point, it simply goes to the individual States to make their decision what they want to do. You will have some states that will be pro-life and others pro-abortion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Welcome back to the 19th Century, of back street abortions and women's health affected by ectopic pregnancies, rape, incest. If this passes it will be awful.

Nobody wants abortions, but there are good reasons not to ban them

A problem with conservatives on the court is that
they tend to be more fundamentalist Christian.
Despite biblical ambiguities regarding abortion,
then tend to believe the Bible prohibits abortion.
(It also prohibits divorce, gay marriage, & other
useful things....so I've been told.)
The body of law is massive, & balances competing
interests. This allows theocrats to find refuge in
the complexity when crafting biblical based law.

This does not excuse liberals playing the same game
when seeking mischief, eg, Kelo vs New London.
Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia

 

[VoidCat]

It means more people are going to be joining The Satanic Temple. And TST will be suing a few states I think for infringing upon religious freedoms

Speaking of which I need to buy a membership card. I already signed up for membership just in case I'm raped and become pregnant and cuz i agree with their tenets but I do wish for a membership card to provide financial support.

 

[fantome profane]

Basically, at that point, it simply goes to the individual States to make their decision what they want to do. You will have some states that will be pro-life and others pro-abortion.

So it really isn’t about banning abortion, it is just limiting abortion to people who own a car.

 

[pearl]

The so-called 'trigger' law.
If Roe were overturned, Massachusetts residents would be protected by the state-level ROE Act, which allows abortions after 24 weeks in cases with a fatal fetal anomaly and in situations when deemed necessary by a doctor.

The act also lowers the age from 18 to 16 at which individuals can seek abortions without parental consent.

“We knew this decision was likely coming, but today it is just a draft decision. Abortion is still legal here in Massachusetts and across the country," Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts President & CEO Dr. Jennifer Childs-Roshak said. "There is power in state and local leadership to protect our fundamental right to abortion and expand access to abortion care. We’ve proven that in Massachusetts and will continue to lead -- in our clinics providing care to all who want it and by legislating reproductive health equity in every corner of the commonwealth.”
What will happen to abortion access in Massachusetts if the court overrules Roe? (wcvb.com)

 

[SomeRandom]

Basically, at that point, it simply goes to the individual States to make their decision what they want to do. You will have some states that will be pro-life and others pro-abortion.

Oh. That’s…kind of dumb.
Like I’m getting flashbacks to when my history class would laugh at the disjointed United States when it was argued that slavery and then later interracial and gay marriage should be decided by “the states.”
Like that’s such a known dog whistle I literally learned about it in high school. And that was more as an aside since we don’t care about US history that much.

I mean no offence. That was just my experience

 

[Revoltingest]

Like I’m getting flashbacks to when my history class would laugh at the disjointed United States when it was argued that slavery and then later interracial and gay marriage should be decided by “the states.”
Like that’s such a known dog whistle I literally learned about it in high school. And that was more as an aside since we don’t care about US history that much.

It's common for foreigners & even many Ameristanians
to be unaware that we're a republic. The country's
Constitution governs some but not all matters in the
states. This has problems, but it also allows progress
when the federal government lags progressive state
governments.
Is it better to put all the eggs in one basket, ie, have
a central government that determines all law in every
region of a country? That does risk that bad law has
a wider deleterious effect.

I don't trust government. So I like decentralization.
Sure, it can be chaotic, but when government goes
bad, the effects are more limited.

 

[Fool]

So I’m sure many have heard that the Supreme Court is mulling over whether or not to overturn Roe V Wade. It looks like they are, that’s what the news stations are saying anyway

But as a non American I fear I may not fully understand the implications.

So can you help me out a bit here guys?

What does that hypothetical scenario look like in the long run?

Can it be legally challenged?

Why would this be decided by your Supreme Court in the first place? This is like a constitution thing, is that right?

And do you think this will set off a chain reaction of some kind?
I can only imagine the protests that would occur if something similar happened in literally any other Western Nation today.

it would be a corruption of the court. they swore to uphold the truth and now they are trying to give power to the states to overturn it state by state. but the original decision was made based on individuals and not states, nor the federal government. everyone has certain civil rights.

so why not just dissolve the supreme court and give the power back to the states supreme court. since the court doesn't want to make the decision for all states? heck why not just give the power back to the individual; if you going to make it a non-court decision?

see the irony?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

heck why not just give the power back to the individual;

In my opinion, giving more rights to the individual is the best answer. Both of our parties however, seem to only want to give selective rights to the individual

 

[Twilight Hue]

So I’m sure many have heard that the Supreme Court is mulling over whether or not to overturn Roe V Wade. It looks like they are, that’s what the news stations are saying anyway

But as a non American I fear I may nt fully understand the implications.

So can you help me out a bit here guys?

What does that hypothetical scenario look like in the long run?

Can it be legally challenged?

Why would this be decided by your Supreme Court in the first place? This is like a constitution thing, is that right?

And do you think this will set off a chain reaction of some kind?
I can only imagine the protests that would occur if something similar happened in literally any other Western Nation today.

Usually the Supreme Court is employed when lesser courts cannot rectify an issue so its continually challenged through the appeals process until it teaches the top Court where the Supreme Court interprets the law to a final standard.

I suppose it can be challenged further, but it stays if the Supreme Court refuses the case or it revisits it.

 

[Secret Chief]

It's weird that abortion laws can stop abortions and yet gun laws can't stop shootings.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In my opinion, giving more rights to the individual is the best answer. Both of our parties however, seem to only want to give selective rights to the individual

For Freedom to be valid I feel the decision ought to be up to the individual to choose.

I can still be pro life but defend pro choice to preserve one's personal freedom.

At least there are states rights which one can go to a state where it's legal as well if things dont turn out on a federal level.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

In my opinion, giving more rights to the individual is the best answer. Both of our parties however, seem to only want to give selective rights to the individual

What you are missing is what rights do the unborn have? Some people think they have a rights as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

In my opinion, giving more rights to the individual is the best answer. Both of our parties however, seem to only want to give selective rights to the individual

Don't take this as an insult....
You sound like a libertarian.

 

[Revoltingest]

What you are missing is what rights do the unborn have? Some people think they have a rights as well.

I recognize that pro-lifers start with a different premise,
ie, that a fetus has a right to exist & be born. (I just
disagree with this for a host of reasons.)
Where I disagree with many other pro-abortion types
is that the fetus does acquire some rights as a fetus,
if & only if carried to term, & becoming a baby.
"Retro-active rights" one could call them.

Consider....
A baby is born with birth defects due to actions
of others, eg, a mother who abused drugs, someone
poisoned the mother.

This raises the question about what rights others
have to harm the health of the not-yet-born baby.
Should government intervene in some manner,
eg, criminalize such harm, regulate the mother's
conduct? I don't have answers...just concerns.

 

[Fool]

In my opinion, giving more rights to the individual is the best answer. Both of our parties however, seem to only want to give selective rights to the individual

the individual already had the right. it implies they are trying to take it away from individual civil rights and give that over to states to determine. basically making it political