News

Supreme Court overturns federal abortion rights

Lawmakers express dismay; Stanford law professor analyzes potential impact of ruling

By a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe V. Wade decision on abortion rights on June 24, 2022. Courtesy Getty Images.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday reversed the court's Roe v. Wade decision granting women the federal right to an abortion in the United States. The 5-4 decision sends authority to regulate abortion back to the states.

The final opinion, which upheld a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks, was an expected but nonetheless stunning end to 50 years of federal abortion rights for women throughout the country. The decision doesn't end rights granted in individual states, and abortion is still legal in California.

"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 are overruled; the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," the court wrote.

In justifying its decision, the majority wrote: "We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered Liberty.' The right to abortion does not fall within this category."

"It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives," the decision continued. "The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting."

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

Reaction was swift to the court's opinion.

"An ultra-conservative Supreme Court, far out of touch with the American people, just took away the rights of millions of women to control their own bodies. We will steadfastly protect the right to abortion in California. This is a dark day in America," state Assembly member Marc Berman wrote in a tweet.

State Sen. Josh Becker also posted an emotional video on Friday morning.

State Sen. Josh Becker reacts to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022.

"This is a depressing day in American history, indeed. The thought that my daughter and her generation may grow up without the protections that we've had, the rights that we've had for the last 50 years, is really, really a tough moment.

"California will be a sanctuary state both for our residents, of course, and we're working on access and cost but also for the women who are coming — the tens of thousands of women that we know are going to come from other states," he said.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

On Monday, the legislature passed SCA 10, a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right to abortion services and the right to choice in the state constitution, he noted.

"And now we are going further with a package of bills by the Women's Caucus — and I'm proud to be a principal author of one of them — to address cost and accessibility, including growing the abortion workforce. We're going to have to do that. We have to prepare for the tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of women that we know are going to come. We will keep fighting," he said.

U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo speaks about rights at stake following the leak of the Supreme Court draft opinion on the future of Roe v. Wade, at a press conference outside City Hall in Mountain View on May 6, 2022. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo also weighed in through a written statement.

"Today, for the first time in history, the Supreme Court eliminated a constitutional right. This decision is cruel. With Roe gone, Republicans will now charge full speed ahead with their plans to ban abortion nationwide, arrest doctors for offering reproductive care and criminalize contraception, including in-vitro fertilization and post-miscarriage care. I'm devastated that today my daughter has less freedom than I did. The Court has put itself on trial. Democrats will not stop fighting to enshrine Roe v. Wade into law, and voters will not let this stand come November," she said.

Legal analysis of the decision

Stanford Law School Professor Henry T. (Hank) Greely, director of Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, predicted during an interview just prior to Friday's decision that the court would completely overturn Roe v. Wade and say there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion.

Abortion rights are "a corpse whose ventilator will be disconnected" in the coming year on a state-by-state basis, he said.

"States like California … will probably make it easier for people from another state to come in. States like Oklahoma and Texas and Mississippi, but also some of the Upper Midwest, some of the Midwest states will ban it and make it illegal," he said.

Greely said it's likely that there will be a workaround through the use of abortion pills.

"I think that we will see a growth in the use of the abortion pills. But those aren't supposed to be used after about 10 weeks of pregnancy, although that's the most common period for women to have abortions; a substantial chunk of abortions happened after 10 weeks. Very, very few happened after 20 weeks, 1% or so.

It's not clear how safe it is to use the abortion pill after 10 weeks, he said.

"I must state that some of the states with the most stringent laws may end up modifying them to include, say, rape and incest exceptions or make clear the health of the mother exception or maybe even establish early time limits like 10 weeks or six weeks instead of zero weeks," he said.

But passage of laws might be limited in their overall effectiveness, he said.

"I think it's very easy for legislators to pass very, very stringent laws that they know won't go into effect, that make the 20% of their constituents who are strongly pro life happy and don't really change the world in any way. The pill makes enforcing a ban much harder on the states that will ban it. And some of the states that have banned it may loosen their laws a little bit," he said.

Stanford Professor Henry T. (Hank) Greely, director of Stanford Law School's Center for Law and the Biosciences. Courtesy Eleanor Greely.

Socially and politically, Greely said he it's unclear how the Supreme Court decision will play out but predicted that the most passionate advocates will become even more politically active.

"This is one of those issues that minorities (of people) on both sides care very, very deeply about. Most of the population will have a view one way or the other, but it's not something as important to them as the price of gasoline. I doubt that there will be major political swings based on this," he said.

But there could be political consequences. Empowering or mobilizing a small number of people can end up having major political effects, even if most of the people don't feel strongly one way or the other, he said.

"I don't feel confident making any prediction about what the long-term political effects will be. Short term, the pro-abortion forces will be very motivated, and will work very hard," he said. Exactly how that would play out isn't clear, but they would likely work on state legislatures and maybe Senate seats.

"But it's hard to overturn a Supreme Court decision. It took the anti-abortion people 49 years to overturn Roe. I think the pro-life people, the anti-abortion people, will feel empowered and emboldened by their success, which is an impressive success," he said.

"But I think they're also going to be faced with the question, 'Where do they go from here?' And for many of them, they probably don't go anywhere. For many of them, the goal was ending abortion if they've ended abortion in their state, or at least passed laws," he said.

"Even if the practice of abortion ended, given the availability of the pill, I think they'll say OK, good, mission accomplished. Go back to something else. But there will be some, some people who will want to continue, continue to push the borders: of protecting embryos, of protecting fertilized eggs, and who will push farther. So I think there'll be small groups — small but not trivial groups — of people who will be strongly motivated by this result in opposite directions," he said.

Greely said thus far he doesn't see a law that would effectively make it illegal for a woman to travel to another state to receive an abortion, while some bills might be introduced.

"I think they would run into a lot of political resistance to that and particularly from relatively well-off people who think that their spouses or partners or daughters might want to go across the border from Missouri to Illinois to have an abortion," he said.

There are substantial constitutional questions to trying to enforce a law that would ban an activity done in another state where the activity is legal.

"I would have said over the last 50 years that those (laws) probably would be held unconstitutional as violating the rights of Americans to travel from place to place and do things in one state that they can't do otherwise. Nobody has ever tried to punish their citizens for doing gambling that would be illegal in their state if they do it in Las Vegas. So I think there would have been serious constitutional questions. I think there are still serious constitutional questions," he said.

But he didn't know how the current Supreme Court would react if such laws were passed.

"I don't know of any way to know how these five — the five most conservative (justices) — would react to it. I think the three liberal justices plus Chief Justice Roberts would be very sympathetic to the view. You can't constitutionally criminalize in one state something somebody does in another state," he said.

Stanford Law School Constitutional scholar and professor Jane Schacter wrote in an online essay that the court's decision is "seismic" and will potentially have additional consequences down the line.

"Justice (Samuel) Alito’s opinion emphasizes that states can now choose their policy on this contested issue and Justice (Brett) Kavanaugh's concurrence goes out of its way to emphasize that point. But Kavanaugh explicitly raises the specter of a national legislative response. His opinion, which seems meant to emphasize that states are still free to choose their own resolution of the abortion question, is far from reassuring with its reference to a role for Congress in reproductive rights. He is foreshadowing what is inevitable: a drive for Congress to enact a national ban on abortion. Indeed, calls for a national ban picked up steam as soon as the Dobbs opinion was leaked. Such a ban would put a quick end to any federalism-inspired notion that different states can choose different policies on this fraught subject. Kavanaugh's reference to such a national ban at least suggests that he sees in the Constitution a basis for congressional authority to enact such a ban."

Schacter added that the same constitutional doctrine, the 14th Amendment, which supported the Roe and Casey decisions cited in the justices' opinion also supports other important rights, including access to birth control, a right to be intimate with the partner of your choice and marriage equality. If the justices' same reasoning is applied to those other rights, it certainly would jeopardize them, she said.

In a statement on Friday morning, Stanford University School of Medicine Dean Lloyd Minor and Vaden Health Services Executive Director Jim Jacobs said that as a university and academic medical center operating in California, Stanford abides by California state laws, which require that comprehensive reproductive care is available to patients and provide legal protections for those seeking these services.

"We want to affirm that today's Supreme Court decision does not impact any of the campus health or well-being resources available to our students, faculty, or staff. Our programs and services will continue unchanged. The same applies for patients seeking comprehensive reproductive care services at Stanford Medicine's hospitals and clinics throughout the Bay Area. We continue to abide by California laws and will keep providing these services in support of women's health and health equity for all those who rely on this access regardless of identity.

Minor and Jacobs acknowledged that this is a time of significant change.

"We expect there will be passionate debates in the days ahead and that many of you will participate — and lead — these discussions. Every member of our community has the right to participate in the civic process and express their opinions. We also want to encourage all to engage with empathy and grace during this time. While this landmark decision will have far-reaching consequences, it does not change our community's fundamental values, nor our commitment to our missions of research, teaching, and patient care."

The statement also included resources for mental health and well being for individuals and families in the face of the decision.

In a statement on Friday, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone praised the Supreme Court's ruling.

"'The arc of history is long but it bends toward justice.' Never have the words the Rev. Martin Luther King, the great prophet of human rights in the 20th century, rung more true. This historic Supreme Court decision would not have happened without 50 years of patient, loving, hard work by people of all faiths and none, in diverse fields including social service, religion, law, medicine, culture, education, policy and politics. But our work has just begun. The artificial barriers the Supreme Court created by erecting a so-called constitutional right out of thin air have been removed. The struggle to demonstrate we can build a culture that respects every human life, including mothers in crisis pregnancies and the babies they carry, continues. We must redouble our efforts to accompany women and couples who are facing unexpected or difficult pregnancies, as well as to offer mercy to those suffering the after-effects of the abortion experience. Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the unborn, pray for us."

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now
Sue Dremann
 
Sue Dremann is a veteran journalist who joined the Palo Alto Weekly in 2001. She is a breaking news and general assignment reporter who also covers the regional environmental, health and crime beats. Read more >>

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Your support is vital to us continuing to bring you political news. Become a member today.

Supreme Court overturns federal abortion rights

Lawmakers express dismay; Stanford law professor analyzes potential impact of ruling

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 9:47 am
Updated: Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 3:37 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday reversed the court's Roe v. Wade decision granting women the federal right to an abortion in the United States. The 5-4 decision sends authority to regulate abortion back to the states.

The final opinion, which upheld a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks, was an expected but nonetheless stunning end to 50 years of federal abortion rights for women throughout the country. The decision doesn't end rights granted in individual states, and abortion is still legal in California.

"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 are overruled; the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives," the court wrote.

In justifying its decision, the majority wrote: "We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered Liberty.' The right to abortion does not fall within this category."

"It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives," the decision continued. "The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting."

Reaction was swift to the court's opinion.

"An ultra-conservative Supreme Court, far out of touch with the American people, just took away the rights of millions of women to control their own bodies. We will steadfastly protect the right to abortion in California. This is a dark day in America," state Assembly member Marc Berman wrote in a tweet.

State Sen. Josh Becker also posted an emotional video on Friday morning.

"This is a depressing day in American history, indeed. The thought that my daughter and her generation may grow up without the protections that we've had, the rights that we've had for the last 50 years, is really, really a tough moment.

"California will be a sanctuary state both for our residents, of course, and we're working on access and cost but also for the women who are coming — the tens of thousands of women that we know are going to come from other states," he said.

On Monday, the legislature passed SCA 10, a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right to abortion services and the right to choice in the state constitution, he noted.

"And now we are going further with a package of bills by the Women's Caucus — and I'm proud to be a principal author of one of them — to address cost and accessibility, including growing the abortion workforce. We're going to have to do that. We have to prepare for the tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of women that we know are going to come. We will keep fighting," he said.

U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo also weighed in through a written statement.

"Today, for the first time in history, the Supreme Court eliminated a constitutional right. This decision is cruel. With Roe gone, Republicans will now charge full speed ahead with their plans to ban abortion nationwide, arrest doctors for offering reproductive care and criminalize contraception, including in-vitro fertilization and post-miscarriage care. I'm devastated that today my daughter has less freedom than I did. The Court has put itself on trial. Democrats will not stop fighting to enshrine Roe v. Wade into law, and voters will not let this stand come November," she said.

Legal analysis of the decision

Stanford Law School Professor Henry T. (Hank) Greely, director of Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, predicted during an interview just prior to Friday's decision that the court would completely overturn Roe v. Wade and say there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion.

Abortion rights are "a corpse whose ventilator will be disconnected" in the coming year on a state-by-state basis, he said.

"States like California … will probably make it easier for people from another state to come in. States like Oklahoma and Texas and Mississippi, but also some of the Upper Midwest, some of the Midwest states will ban it and make it illegal," he said.

Greely said it's likely that there will be a workaround through the use of abortion pills.

"I think that we will see a growth in the use of the abortion pills. But those aren't supposed to be used after about 10 weeks of pregnancy, although that's the most common period for women to have abortions; a substantial chunk of abortions happened after 10 weeks. Very, very few happened after 20 weeks, 1% or so.

It's not clear how safe it is to use the abortion pill after 10 weeks, he said.

"I must state that some of the states with the most stringent laws may end up modifying them to include, say, rape and incest exceptions or make clear the health of the mother exception or maybe even establish early time limits like 10 weeks or six weeks instead of zero weeks," he said.

But passage of laws might be limited in their overall effectiveness, he said.

"I think it's very easy for legislators to pass very, very stringent laws that they know won't go into effect, that make the 20% of their constituents who are strongly pro life happy and don't really change the world in any way. The pill makes enforcing a ban much harder on the states that will ban it. And some of the states that have banned it may loosen their laws a little bit," he said.

Socially and politically, Greely said he it's unclear how the Supreme Court decision will play out but predicted that the most passionate advocates will become even more politically active.

"This is one of those issues that minorities (of people) on both sides care very, very deeply about. Most of the population will have a view one way or the other, but it's not something as important to them as the price of gasoline. I doubt that there will be major political swings based on this," he said.

But there could be political consequences. Empowering or mobilizing a small number of people can end up having major political effects, even if most of the people don't feel strongly one way or the other, he said.

"I don't feel confident making any prediction about what the long-term political effects will be. Short term, the pro-abortion forces will be very motivated, and will work very hard," he said. Exactly how that would play out isn't clear, but they would likely work on state legislatures and maybe Senate seats.

"But it's hard to overturn a Supreme Court decision. It took the anti-abortion people 49 years to overturn Roe. I think the pro-life people, the anti-abortion people, will feel empowered and emboldened by their success, which is an impressive success," he said.

"But I think they're also going to be faced with the question, 'Where do they go from here?' And for many of them, they probably don't go anywhere. For many of them, the goal was ending abortion if they've ended abortion in their state, or at least passed laws," he said.

"Even if the practice of abortion ended, given the availability of the pill, I think they'll say OK, good, mission accomplished. Go back to something else. But there will be some, some people who will want to continue, continue to push the borders: of protecting embryos, of protecting fertilized eggs, and who will push farther. So I think there'll be small groups — small but not trivial groups — of people who will be strongly motivated by this result in opposite directions," he said.

Greely said thus far he doesn't see a law that would effectively make it illegal for a woman to travel to another state to receive an abortion, while some bills might be introduced.

"I think they would run into a lot of political resistance to that and particularly from relatively well-off people who think that their spouses or partners or daughters might want to go across the border from Missouri to Illinois to have an abortion," he said.

There are substantial constitutional questions to trying to enforce a law that would ban an activity done in another state where the activity is legal.

"I would have said over the last 50 years that those (laws) probably would be held unconstitutional as violating the rights of Americans to travel from place to place and do things in one state that they can't do otherwise. Nobody has ever tried to punish their citizens for doing gambling that would be illegal in their state if they do it in Las Vegas. So I think there would have been serious constitutional questions. I think there are still serious constitutional questions," he said.

But he didn't know how the current Supreme Court would react if such laws were passed.

"I don't know of any way to know how these five — the five most conservative (justices) — would react to it. I think the three liberal justices plus Chief Justice Roberts would be very sympathetic to the view. You can't constitutionally criminalize in one state something somebody does in another state," he said.

Stanford Law School Constitutional scholar and professor Jane Schacter wrote in an online essay that the court's decision is "seismic" and will potentially have additional consequences down the line.

"Justice (Samuel) Alito’s opinion emphasizes that states can now choose their policy on this contested issue and Justice (Brett) Kavanaugh's concurrence goes out of its way to emphasize that point. But Kavanaugh explicitly raises the specter of a national legislative response. His opinion, which seems meant to emphasize that states are still free to choose their own resolution of the abortion question, is far from reassuring with its reference to a role for Congress in reproductive rights. He is foreshadowing what is inevitable: a drive for Congress to enact a national ban on abortion. Indeed, calls for a national ban picked up steam as soon as the Dobbs opinion was leaked. Such a ban would put a quick end to any federalism-inspired notion that different states can choose different policies on this fraught subject. Kavanaugh's reference to such a national ban at least suggests that he sees in the Constitution a basis for congressional authority to enact such a ban."

Schacter added that the same constitutional doctrine, the 14th Amendment, which supported the Roe and Casey decisions cited in the justices' opinion also supports other important rights, including access to birth control, a right to be intimate with the partner of your choice and marriage equality. If the justices' same reasoning is applied to those other rights, it certainly would jeopardize them, she said.

In a statement on Friday morning, Stanford University School of Medicine Dean Lloyd Minor and Vaden Health Services Executive Director Jim Jacobs said that as a university and academic medical center operating in California, Stanford abides by California state laws, which require that comprehensive reproductive care is available to patients and provide legal protections for those seeking these services.

"We want to affirm that today's Supreme Court decision does not impact any of the campus health or well-being resources available to our students, faculty, or staff. Our programs and services will continue unchanged. The same applies for patients seeking comprehensive reproductive care services at Stanford Medicine's hospitals and clinics throughout the Bay Area. We continue to abide by California laws and will keep providing these services in support of women's health and health equity for all those who rely on this access regardless of identity.

Minor and Jacobs acknowledged that this is a time of significant change.

"We expect there will be passionate debates in the days ahead and that many of you will participate — and lead — these discussions. Every member of our community has the right to participate in the civic process and express their opinions. We also want to encourage all to engage with empathy and grace during this time. While this landmark decision will have far-reaching consequences, it does not change our community's fundamental values, nor our commitment to our missions of research, teaching, and patient care."

The statement also included resources for mental health and well being for individuals and families in the face of the decision.

In a statement on Friday, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone praised the Supreme Court's ruling.

"'The arc of history is long but it bends toward justice.' Never have the words the Rev. Martin Luther King, the great prophet of human rights in the 20th century, rung more true. This historic Supreme Court decision would not have happened without 50 years of patient, loving, hard work by people of all faiths and none, in diverse fields including social service, religion, law, medicine, culture, education, policy and politics. But our work has just begun. The artificial barriers the Supreme Court created by erecting a so-called constitutional right out of thin air have been removed. The struggle to demonstrate we can build a culture that respects every human life, including mothers in crisis pregnancies and the babies they carry, continues. We must redouble our efforts to accompany women and couples who are facing unexpected or difficult pregnancies, as well as to offer mercy to those suffering the after-effects of the abortion experience. Our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the unborn, pray for us."

Comments

Justin Taylor
Registered user
Stanford
on Jun 24, 2022 at 12:52 pm
Justin Taylor, Stanford
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 12:52 pm

Given the prior leak of Samuel Alito's brief, this SCOTUS decision was a foregone conclusion.

Legal abortions are now up to the discretion of the individual states pending federal legislation to ban abortions nationwide.

The 2022 midterm and 2024 presidential elections will provide a clearer picture of where this is all headed


Me 2
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Jun 24, 2022 at 2:39 pm
Me 2, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 2:39 pm

Live by the courts, die by the courts.

That's what happens when you take governmental shortcuts instead of going through the legislature. Executive orders have the same problem. Here for 4 years -- and then eliminated by the next President.

Lasting change happens through legislation. That's how it's legal in California. I seriously doubt that a federal ban will happen given where the country is.


Loraine Johnson
Registered user
Barron Park
on Jun 24, 2022 at 3:00 pm
Loraine Johnson, Barron Park
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 3:00 pm

Speaking as an advocate of pro-choice and a Conservative Christian, women should retain the right to make a decision pertaining to abortion but this decision still equates to the premeditated murder of a human life.

The government should not be involved with this decision as it is one between an individual and their chosen faith.

Pending repentance, those who opt for an abortion will never be accepted by a Christian god or find sanctuary in the kingdom of heaven.


SteveDabrowski
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 24, 2022 at 5:02 pm
SteveDabrowski, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2022 at 5:02 pm

Don't blame the justices, it is all the Democratic and Independent women who "just couldn't vote for Hillary" who are responsible for the loss of Roe v Wade.

Sometimes it is best to take what you can get in the best interest of the country rather than throwing your vote away or taking a pass.

So now you got what you didn't vote for, too bad!


Mark Goren
Registered user
Barron Park
on Jun 25, 2022 at 11:15 am
Mark Goren, Barron Park
Registered user
on Jun 25, 2022 at 11:15 am

> ...those who opt for an abortion will never be accepted by a Christian god or find sanctuary in the kingdom of heaven.

Perhaps best to cross that bridge when the time comes.

In the meantime, women have the right to decide upon childbirth or abortion and men must bear responsibility for all pregnancies as well.

Men...consider getting 'clipped' (aka via vasectomy) and avoid any complications.

There is no mention in the Bible about vasectomies so this remains another option.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 25, 2022 at 6:25 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Jun 25, 2022 at 6:25 pm

The SC removed itself from the questionable activity which was the right thing to do. Each state will have to determine through a legislative process how they want to proceed. Each state will have to figure out how to fund their position - the taxpayers do now want to be held accountable for this activity.

Putting this back on the legislative process puts the legislators in the position of taking a position which they do not want to do. It is accountability time now.


Citizen
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 26, 2022 at 12:15 pm
Citizen, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Jun 26, 2022 at 12:15 pm

Democrats and their flaky voting patterns, not understanding how power works in our system--letting SCOTUS be rightwing for an unbroken 50 years--shouldn't act so surprised. Why do people even bother to protest, which will do nothing with insufficient levers in power? They should be working on a voting-turnout-ground-game with almost not enough time left to save democracy & our overheating planet. The midterms had like 15% turnout. Did no one take civics in school? Is no one paying attention to how Stacey Abrahms changed things in Georgia?

Conservatives aren't even pretending to make honest rulings. Why would founders have felt the need to put abortion in the Constitution--it wasn't even illegal then. Even thinking in Catholic Church changed over time. Contrary to what's said above, despite it being as old as humanity, it's not mentioned in the Bible at all. (Unlike treating foreign aliens as if they are your own, which is mentioned. And not bearing false witness, mentioned in both New and Old Testaments. Uncomfortably for many, Jesus says don't get divorced. And love your enemies, bless those who curse you. Treat the least among us as Christ Himself. The love of money is the root of all evil. It's more difficult for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Uncomfortable stuff like that. Nothing about abortion.)

There was a time when protesting would have been the response for those opposed to the ruling. That time has passed. Watch the House Committee Hearings and work in innovative and new ways on turnout in this year's midterms with an eye towards better majorities in Congress and power in state houses. Frankly, if democracy goes, so does the future of the planet as the window for addressing the climate crisis disappears.

Countries in the world with lowest abortion rates are places where it's legal. This ruling isn't about abortion which could be reduced with no laws, it's about power and money.




Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 26, 2022 at 12:52 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Jun 26, 2022 at 12:52 pm

Totally agree with Citizen's post above. While the Democrats are more interested in fighting among themselves, for DECADES the GOP has systematically worked to overturn basic rights. Go back to their opposition to the ERA. Read up on direct nail pioneer Richard Viguerie who created TIMED "hot button" appeals to avoid barraging voters with so many appeals for so many worthy causes, they threw away the appeals. Read up on "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer,.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 26, 2022 at 7:01 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Jun 26, 2022 at 7:01 pm

The SC removed thenselves from the topic. THey are saying that it is a legislative issues - not a judicial issue. It puts this back on the states to determine their positions on the subject. [Portion removed.]


ndn
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jun 27, 2022 at 9:28 am
ndn, Downtown North
Registered user
on Jun 27, 2022 at 9:28 am

I agree with citizen. Let me just add:

From moment of conception, it is life:
Yes, many mammals (and other species) share that fact. But, it's life that cannot sustain itself. It needs a "mom" to make it into a person, someone to carry, feed and sustain it until it can exist by itself. Until it's ready to survive on its own merits it's parasitical, dependent on the pregnant female for existing. If it's in my body I should be able to control that process not to be forced to be a surrogate . Freedom means that I'm able to refuse to be a vessel for others and for others religious choices, and therefore get an abortion without having to justify it.
What if the meaningful survivability of a fetus can be assured earlier than currently is? Well then we must consider adjusting the the timing restrictions for an abortion.
Until then, it's my body not the Supreme Court's no matter how much they seem to be bent to curtail my reproductive freedom. The fetus is life all right, but it's a life with no meaning until the pregnant person decides to give a personhood which only happens at birth.
I'm a mother and very happy to have my children by my own choice only.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.