Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade in landmark opinion

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Ronn Blitzer , Kelly Laco | Fox News




The Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, effectively ending recognition of a constitutional right to abortion and giving individual states the power to allow, limit, or ban the practice altogether.

The ruling came in the court's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which centered on a Mississippi law that banned abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The Republican-led state of Mississippi asked the Supreme Court to strike down a lower court ruling that stopped the 15-week abortion ban from taking place.

"We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court's opinion.

The opinion comes after a leak of a draft opinion from February striking down Roe caused nationwide debate and promoted pro-choice activist protests at the homes of the six conservative justices. In addition, dozens of pro-life pregnancy centers were vandalized since the opinion leak, Catholic churches were targeted for protests and unrest, and a suspect was charged with attempted murder for allegedly trying to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.



The high court heard oral arguments in the case in December 2021. Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart argued in support of the law. He also argued that two landmark abortion cases that kept state governments from prohibiting abortions at certain points during a pregnancy – Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey – be overturned.

Pro-life advocates believe that the state is the best forum for debate over abortion restrictions, and see the overturn of Roe as the rightful return of the issue to the states.



At least 13 Republican-led states have already passed "trigger laws," in the event Roe is overturned, that would immediately restrict access to abortion if the Supreme Court went so far as to overturn the 50-year precedent.

Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and South Carolina all have laws banning abortions after the six-week mark, which have been ruled unconstitutional but would likely be revisited if Roe is overturned, the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research group, has reported.

On the other hand, pro-choice advocates will have to work to codify Roe or enact looser abortion restrictions by passing state-level legislation.

New York passed a bill in 2018 designed to codify Roe, and other blue states are expected to follow suit after the Supreme Court's ruling.

Public opinion polling has also indicated that despite that more than six in 10 registered voters think the court should uphold Roe, the majority of Americans are in favor of some restrictions on abortion.



When Americans were asked in a recent Fox News poll about how they would feel if a law banning abortions after 15 weeks were passed in their state, just over half of voters favor it (54%) while 41% are opposed.

At the federal level, the Senate failed to advance a bill to codify federal abortion protections in Roe v. Wade in the week following the leaked draft.

Vice President Kamala Harris presided over the vote on the Women’s Health Protection Act. It needed 60 votes to advance but died in a 51 to 49 tally, with West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin joining with all 50 Republicans in voting no.

President Biden immediately condemned Republicans for blocking the abortion rights legislation at a time when "women’s constitutional rights are under unprecedented attack." He called on voters to elect more Democrats in November so that the legislation can get passed next year.



Democratic campaign arms have already signaled that abortion will be a key issue heading into the midterms and will galvanize their base. Republicans are largely convinced that "sanctity of life" issues will spark renewed enthusiasm for conservative candidates in state-level elections.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Ryan Saavedra - The Daily Wire


Multiple Republican-controlled states moved to immediately ban abortions following the Supreme Court’s decision Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade.

“First, 13 states with ‘trigger bans,’ designed to take effect as soon as Roe is overturned, will ban abortion within 30 days,” The Washington Post reported. “Several other states where recent antiabortion legislation has been blocked by the courts are expected to act next, with lawmakers moving to activate their dormant legislation. A handful of states also have pre-Roe abortion bans that could be brought back to life.”

States with “trigger bans” include Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Kentucky.

[Teh One Who Knocks]

The actual full ruling if anyone wants to read it:

The Daily Wire Dobbs, State... by Timothy Meads

[lost in melb.]

[Teh One Who Knocks]

[lost in melb.]

It won't stop abortions. Well... wealthy Republicans will be able to get them easily.

It'll be interesting in 15 years or so when a new generation of unwanted children become gang bangers.

[DemonGeminiX]

It won't stop abortions. Well... wealthy Republicans will be able to get them easily.

It'll be interesting in 15 years or so when a new generation of unwanted children become gang bangers.

What a load of bullshit. Did you even read the article or the decision? Did you actually understand it if you did? What this does is just strikes down the Roe vs Wade decision which was decided in court. It should never have been decided there in the first place. Courts are not legislators, they have no power to create law where no law existed, and they never should have handed down this ruling. There is no Constitutional right to abortion. Vacating Roe vs Wade puts the abortion decision back in the hands of the state legislatures, where it belongs. States with pro-abortion laws will remain pro-abortion, and states with anti-abortion laws will remain anti-abortion. Nothing will change until a state legislature changes their laws. If a pregnant woman wants to have an abortion and she lives in an anti-abortion state, then she can just go to a pro-abortion state and murder her baby there.

[lost in melb.]

What a load of bullshit. Did you even read the article or the decision? Did you actually understand it if you did? What this does is just strikes down the Roe vs Wade decision which was decided in court. It should never have been decided there in the first place. Courts are not legislators, they have no power to create law where no law existed, and they never should have handed down this ruling. There is no Constitutional right to abortion. Vacating Roe vs Wade puts the abortion decision back in the hands of the state legislatures, where it belongs. States with pro-abortion laws will remain pro-abortion, and states with anti-abortion laws will remain anti-abortion. Nothing will change until a state legislature changes their laws. If a pregnant woman wants to have an abortion and she lives in an anti-abortion state, then she can just go to a pro-abortion state and murder her baby there.

Next up: the right to marriage equality, contraception, interracial marriage, same-sex relations and anal sex.

All to be decided by your local government. This will be bad for Republicans.

[Hikari Kisugi]

What a load of bullshit. Did you even read the article or the decision? Did you actually understand it if you did? What this does is just strikes down the Roe vs Wade decision which was decided in court. It should never have been decided there in the first place. Courts are not legislators, they have no power to create law where no law existed, and they never should have handed down this ruling. There is no Constitutional right to abortion. Vacating Roe vs Wade puts the abortion decision back in the hands of the state legislatures, where it belongs. States with pro-abortion laws will remain pro-abortion, and states with anti-abortion laws will remain anti-abortion. Nothing will change until a state legislature changes their laws. If a pregnant woman wants to have an abortion and she lives in an anti-abortion state, then she can just go to a pro-abortion state and murder her baby there.

It is interesting however, as one would think it might affect the poorest in society most, if they can't afford to travel, they can't afford to get rid of kids, that they can't afford.
It'll bolster ghettos, one feels. We'll see.
You country you cna make and overturn whatever laws you like.

I did say previously my view is different, I think there are far too many humans on the world, and if someone really doesn't want one, then get rid of it before it is born.



What is this related to, I've seen this posted elsewhere, and don't know the actual source?

[Teh One Who Knocks]

By Ryan Saavedra - The Daily Wire




Democrats and other far-left activists erupted Friday afternoon after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) led chants outside the Supreme Court, falsely claiming that the ruling from the nation’s highest court was “illegitimate” and encouraging activists to take to “the streets.”

The extreme remarks from Ocasio-Cortez come after a left-wing extremist was arrested outside the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh for allegedly trying to assassinate the judge.

Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said during her press conference that there was “no point in saying ‘good morning,’ because it certainly is not one.”

Pelosi went on to make false claims about what the ruling means for other issues related to pregnancy, as noted by legal scholar Jonathan Turley.

Far-left activist Cameron Kasky appeared to encourage even more extreme action, tweeting: “Go to the home of every Supreme Court justice who just voted to kill women. Let them know how you feel.”

[deebakes]

we still allow baby killing here, all are welcome

[lost in melb.]

Kev and DGX, I take your points that your states are not quite like the states in Australia. There's quite a bit of a difference there. So there's more of an argument for differentiation of Law between the states in US.

I just think of all of those social rights and freedoms which I think we would all support, aside from abortion and some types of gay marriage...those right were enshrined federally in similar method to Roe & Wade. I really can't think of any other practical way that this could have been done? And now ,technically, they can be undone in the same way as R& W. I'm not saying that would happen, but it opens the door.

[DemonGeminiX]

Kev and DGX, I take your points that your states are not quite like the states in Australia. There's quite a bit of a difference there. So there's more of an argument for differentiation of Law between the states in US.

I just think of all of those social rights and freedoms which I think we would all support, aside from abortion and some types of gay marriage...those right were enshrined federally in similar method to Roe & Wade. I really can't think of any other practical way that this could have been done? And now ,technically, they can be undone in the same way as R& W. I'm not saying that would happen, but it opens the door.

The practical way that social issues get done in the US is that citizens who believe in them go out and vote for the candidates running for the state legislature that supports those social issues. For those people who don't support them, they vote for the other candidate. Whoever wins, if their party is the majority, then that's the legislation that gets written and sent to the Executive branch's desk to be signed or vetoed. If the executive (governor) is in the same party as the legislative majority, then 99% of the time, the bill will be signed into law. If the exec/gov is not in the same party, then 99% of the time, the bill will be vetoed. Sometimes, a majority of legislators belonging to one party will send a bill to a gov who belongs to the other party, but the gov believes in the bill, so he/she will cross party lines and sign it into law anyway. Or a gov of the same party as the legislative majority won't believe in the bill and will veto it, regardless of the fact that it came from legislative members of his or her own party. It happens.

The higher courts, appellate and what not, determine whether or not the laws under question are Constitutional, fair, and just. They do not make laws, they just determine which laws that the other two branches put into the law books pass muster.

What the Supreme Court did back in 1973 in ruling RvW was wrong. They overstepped their Constitutional authority. They also did it with the gay marriage question a while back. That's not the Court's job. That's the legislature's job. The Court is not the legislature. They are not supposed to legislate from the bench. And because abortion's not in the Constitution or in the Amendments, then the 10th Amendment applies, the decision on the right belongs to the states, or the people. The same thing goes for gay marriage, and the whole laundry list of things you posted before.

That's the way government works or is supposed to work, in the United States.

[KevinD]

See above. Exactly correct. Like it or not, this is the way our country is supposed to work.
Australia is not a republic. It is a democracy. There is no comparison in how laws work.


Now, if you want to have a discussion about whether or not abortion is needed, moral, or a viable form of birth control, I'd be happy to discuss it. The facts are the the Supreme Court made the correct judgment under our constitution. They made no judgment on the question of abortion, just confirmed that constitutionally, the federal government has no say in this specific thing. I look forward to seeing what further judgments they make. It will be interesting to see if I agree or not.

[lost in melb.]

Ok.

Perhaps dissolution is the fate of US...