From "Americans broadly support Supreme Court upholding Roe v. Wade and oppose Texas abortion law, Post-ABC poll finds" (WaPo).
The good news for supporters of access to abortion is that if the Supreme Court happens to nullify the longstanding right to have an abortion, the strong support from the public ought to lead quickly to statutory law guaranteeing that right. That process of getting back to the right we'll have lost will radically affect American politics, but who has the inclination now or the skill to accurate predict how that will work out? If I say it will help the Democratic Party, who will believe me?
Posts
78 comments:
If you take a real poll then you will find there is really no support for abortion after the first trimester.
Most people are not up for killing and dismembering babies.
More importantly if you frame the question in an honest manner most people know the federal government is not the appropriate place for this fight.
It is pretty funny to watch Ann dive right into her confirmation bias.
Nobody thinks abortion at 6-9 months is a protected right Ann.
I believe you.
We really, really need mostly uniform laws across the country. Not one law for TX and NE and another law for NY and CA.
Who it helps would depend on the legislation proposed. Most Americans would be reluctantly satisfied with:
A right to abortion in the first trimester,
A right to abortion in cases of rape and incest and physical health of the mother in the second trimester,
A right to abortion in cases of physical health of the mother in the third trimester.
I agree with Althouse that it will help the Democrat party if the most Catholic Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade or otherwise upholds the Texas vigilante-abortion law.
If the most holy papists Court punts on Roe, it will slightly help the Dims because it still highlights a republican overreach.
This is the flip side to how the Dems got slaughtered after going apeshit gun grabbing.
Neither side wants to make reasonable compromises on these two nuke hot button issues because they are Lynch pins that keep the middle and lower classes hatefully divided against each other for the benefit of the Davos billionaires.
"That process of getting back to the right we will have lost"
You mean, that process of properly enacting a law granting a privilege to replace the fabrication of a nonexistent "right."
"who has the inclination now or the skill to accurate predict how that will work out"
It will work out differently in different states, but some blue states will allow the killing of viable babies up to the moment of birth, since there is no limit to the progressive Althousian principle that a woman should be able to decide what happens to anything within her own body.
"If I say it will help the Democratic Party, who will believe me?"
I do. But American parties are flexible. A big part of the GOP turned pro-life out of electoral calculation, and post-Roe will calculate differently.
If the Roe-ish regime gets struck down, pro-lifers won't get what they actually want. The battle will be about what limit, if any, to impose on abortion--some moderate European-style early-stage limit or a looser autonomy-ueber-alles baby-be-damned non-limit.
I wouldn't believe you if you said the sun rises in the east.
Could Texas have avoided the Roe challenge by activating the law after the first trimester instead of six weeks?
The good news for supporters of access to abortion is that if the Supreme Court happens to nullify the longstanding right to have an abortion, the strong support from the public ought to lead quickly to statutory law guaranteeing that right.
Which is how it should have been done in the first damned place.
The Supreme Court was wrong on Roe v. Wade. They had to resort to "penumbras" of the Constitution to arrive at their decision. Abortion is a political question. There are three people involved, the mother, father and baby. A political decision would have balanced the interests of all three and resulted in a law that most of the population could have accepted. Washington State already had an abortion law when the Court decided Roe v. Wade. If the Court had decision had been that of no jurisdiction, let the states decide, the other states would have enacted laws that work for them.
Instead, we've got 50 years of political warfare, with both pro- and anti- sides trying to obtain total, unconditional victory when what's required is a peace treaty that both sides can accept. The anti-side has proposed laws that restrict abortion but do not end it. The pro-side can never accept those laws as they see their beliefs to be The One True position. To compromise, would be sacrilege and heretical.
The good news for supporters of slavery is that if the Supreme Court happens to nullify the longstanding right to enslave human beings, the strong support from the public ought to lead quickly to statutory law guaranteeing that right. That process of getting back to the right we will have lost will radically affect American politics, but who has the inclination now or the skill to accurate predict how that will work out. If I say it will help the Democratic Party, who will believe me?
I very much doubt that poll is even close to accurate. Roe v Wade was a horrendous legal decision. The Supremes simply decided to make law under an embarrassing tissue of reasoning.
It's 6 weeks now? Earlier the reporting was just 4 weeks.
BTW, I do think a SCOTUS striking down Row v. Wade just ahead of an expected shellacking of Democrats in the midterms would be a disaster for Republicans and the country.
"Americans say by a roughly 2-to-1 margin that the Supreme Court should uphold its landmark abortion decision in Roe v. Wade..."
"... a
On other news, Americans by a roughly 4-1 margin have no idea what the actual consequences would be of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade.
Were the pre-children in the womb asked for their opinion?
I was wondering why people are pushing the ridiculous idea that this SCOTUS will overturn Roe v. Wade when its refused again and again to take a bold Conservative position on ANYTHING. i think its two things:
1) Roberts and Republican Establishment may actually modify Roe v. Wade in some minor symbolic manner, to give Conservatives a win, and decrease the anger and alienation on the Right. They may be afraid that after the election fraud, massive inflation, illegals swamping the borders, CRT, etc. the "Trumpists" are going to rise up and crush the Establishment in 2022. A SCOTUS win will release the pressure, and demotivate social conservative votes.
OR
2) the Democrats are just doing their usual "Wolf, wolf" nonsense, that they pull everytime there's a SCOTUS abortion case. " OMG, OMG, those crazy rightwing judges are going to overturn Roe v. Wade" - they've been doing that ever since the early 1990s when the SCOTUS supposedly had a five Conservative majority.
The conventional wisdom is that such a ruling would lead to more democrats to come out to the polls. Bully for them.
But then it becomes a states issue. With this well of support you would expect many (most?) States to codify Roe. The problem with that is that state legislatures are pesky things. I suspect that restrictions on abortion are far more popular than Roe.
Imagine some backwater like Connecticut having a state representative offer an amendment to the Roe legislation that requires a woman to see a social worker to get an abortion after 12 weeks, and abortions are effectively nonexistant after 16 weeks. This would be called the Dutch model. And as soon as this amendment his the floor all of the die hard antinatalists would scream about how any restriction is slavery incarnate (or whatever the current woke boogeyman man is). And the entire public would get to see the extreme-ness of the "standard" democrat politician, and how anti-democratis the Roe decision was.
You could get delegate Tan of Virginia talking about how important it is that we retain the ability of women in labor to abort the baby.
Some naive member of the Wisconsin house film a bill that says that abortion is legal for rape victims (up to week x), provided they file a police report and the aborted remains are kept for DNA identification/prosecution. And watch as the alleged "rapists" provide all kinds of proof that the relationship was co sequential, and those filing false report facing legal co sequences.
Imagine Oklahoma passing a tax, say $1000 per abortion. Then make a law to allow for charities to be set up to help the poor. Have the charities report amount and restrictions placed on monies given.
And after every time the democrats do a full bodied defense of the "we must keep 1973 Roe!" The "normal" democrats knowing that abortion (with restrictions) is now legal in their state say these people are crazy and leave for the other, saner party.
So, yeah the conventional wisdom is that abolishing Roe helps democrats now. I speculate it hurts them for a decade.
Would Roe v Wade being overturned (in a major way) help the Democrats? Yes, but not in a way some think. The blue states would automatically enact liberal pro-choice legislation and nothing would change there. A few Red states would enact Pro-life laws. The issue would be defused, and no one would really care anymore.
This will help the D's since many Republican voters are social conservatives, and liberal on everything else. Take Abortion off the table and many of these voters will stay home or go back to the Democrat party.
Isn't it odd that our discussion of abortion rights is presented only as criticism of the two extremes? And then the crowning argument is that people overwhelmingly choose RvW when presented with that choice - rather than articulating a spectrum of choices and seeing where the sentiments more precisely lie? Once again, dishonest journalism lets society down.
These polls are essentially meaningless because only 5% or so or the respondents could probably give a cogent summary of the holdings in Roe and Casey. No matter whether one is pro-abortion or not, everyone should read the 1973 article by Prof. John Hart Ely (he being a pro-aborter): Prof. Ely of Harvard Law School (later dean of Stanford Law School) derided the decision as “bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” But I love to see the left twist itself into knots trying to justify Roe/Casey on legal/constitutional grounds.
But now, make the case for abortion.
If Roe is overturned by the Supremes, I think it's likely that state legislatures will immediately begin passing laws that will both legalize AnD regulate abortion. The regulators will most assuredly be Republicans, while the dems will remain the murdering bastards that they are. Net gain to the Rs. And I don't believe you.
If it so broadly supported then why hasn't that legislation already been put into effect rather than relying on court decisions? It has been 50 years and no such legislation exists, does it?
I wish that when our hostess wrote "The good news for supporters of access to abortion is that if the Supreme Court happens to nullify the longstanding right to have an abortion, the strong support from the public ought to lead quickly to statutory law guaranteeing that right" she had specified whether she anticipated federal or state statutes. Because if Roe is overturned, I don't see how this becomes a federal issue. The commerce clause?
The Texas abortion law shows that you can't trust Republicans.
There is a difference between people saying in a push poll, "Sure, whatever," and actually caring enough to really take a position.
The fact is that most people don't care.
And ask another question in a non-slanted way, an overwhelming majority will oppose second and third trimester abortions, and a very large majority will agree that what is involved in "abortion" is the killing of a human being.
Also, by the way -- you can't nullify a nullity.
For those people who are SERIOUS about the issue and public opinion, here is a just-released report containing a few hundred polling results going back nearly 50 years:
Attitudes about abortion: A comprehensive review of polls from the 1970s to today
Things don't stop being morally wrong and intellectually deficient just because some poll says it's okay. I don't care if I'm the only person on this planet besides the five justices necessary who thinks so - Roe is just stupid and wrong.
If I say it will help the Democratic Party, who will believe me?
I don't think that there's any doubt that Roe has helped the GOP in recent presidential elections. Activating Pro Life voters was a key in George W and Trump's victories. I think I recall Karl Rove ruminating that it would be bad politically for the GOP if Roe was overturned.
If the Dems had their shit together they should be able to gain if Roe is overturned. But they they are now in such disarray that I doubt it will happen.
The pro-life movement is trying to return the ability to regulate abortion to the states. It is well understood that a majority of Americans will not accept a total ban on abortion. But as the blog notes, they will accept laws or regulations which regulate abortion. Laws against abortion on demand up to the moment of birth are widely acceptable. Laws aimed at preventing harm to women from incompetent butchers like Gosnell are widely acceptable. Laws defending the right to life of the unborn are seen as extremist just as the abolitionists and those who assisted fugitive slaves were regarded as extremists in their time.
These days people who support CRT are completely silent about the disproportionate number of abortions in the black community. This disproportion is the reason the blacks are no longer the largest minority in the US but instead are declining relatively and absolutely in numbers. And if you support CRT it is certain that you support the Teachers Union which supports Planned Parenthood which planned and implemented that existing decline for eugenic reasons. Margaret Sanger's name had been taken off the headquarters building of Planned Parenthood because of her eugenic beliefs but her spirit goes marching on funded by Title X and protected by the supporters of CRT.
There is no evidence of electoral backlash in Texas. Texas's law failed to change anything in Virginia or New Jersey.
Women of child bearing age are not Boomers or even Gen X. We've grown up in a world where birth control and plan b are readily available for anyone who wants it. The media and Hollywood will fear monger no doubt, but I suspect voters will care less than they let on when legislation actually takes effect. Has Texas gone up in flames since thousands of babies have not been aborted? Nope.
Public Opinion on the imposition of power over others:
"It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race....They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race."
--Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)
Whether Roe v Wade is "good law" has nothing to do with its purported popularity. It's a standalone decision whose central proposition that abortion is a medical decision made a patient in consultation with a medical doctor and therefore outside the sphere of government regulation, yet that general proposition isn't general--I know of no case where it has been extended to other controversial medical procedures (whether or not to get a certain vaccine is certainly not something between doctor and patient, for example).
Roe v Wade is thus bad law. It's pure judicial legislation. Regulation of abortion is a matter left to the states. Some states will ban it. Others will allow it. What's so bad about that? Start a charity. Provide transportation for those unable to afford it so they can travel to their doctor of choice in their jurisdiction of choice. Is that really so hard?
Kind regards,
CS
the strong support from the public ought to lead quickly to statutory law guaranteeing that right
The US is the only country that I'm aware of in which the right to have an abortion is considered a Constitutional right rather than a right granted by statutory law. Before Roe, individual States were starting to legalize abortion. If Roe is overturned, then it's likely that abortion will be legal in the blue States and illegal in the Red States. And the abortion issue would be more of a factor in state elections and a much smaller one in Federal elections.
Personally, I'm an outlier. I'm in favor of a strong Constitutional Right to Privacy and support a woman's right to get an abortion, but I'm against finding implied rights in the Constitution, which the Right to Privacy is. I'd support a Constitutional amendment to include a Right to Privacy, but I think that "discovering" new rights in the penumbra of expressed rights opens the door for future Courts to do whatever they want.
The Venn Diagram that is of most interest to me is the one that intersects the people who believe these two things:
* Roe V. Wade should be struck down
* Vaccine Mandates are unconstitutional, because "my body my choice"
You *know* that those people are out there ...
I haven't dug into the article to see if they quoted the actual poll questions (I studied see that they have). But it seems to me that if they didn't mention in the questions that in at least some American jurisdictions, abortion is legal up to the moment of birth, they didn't get an accurate stat about Americans' "support for abortion."
I call survey bullshit. The article and survey questions are behind firewalls so I can not see how they asked questions. However, when people are asked if they support late-term abortion, they overwhelmingly oppose it as a method of voluntary birth control. If properly asked, the majority also favor reasonable restrictions on abortion. I see little or no chance that the Court will overturn Roe, but will seek to open the door for reasonable restrictions on abortion. The Court is not good at this political sort of balancing of interests which is why Roe should never have been decided as is. Legislatures would have worked the messy process of democracy to a balance reflective of the values of the people. Either you believe in self-rule by citizens or you don’t.
Ann,
The Post-ABC poll finds 27 percent of Americans say the court should overturn Roe, while 60 percent say it should be upheld, attitudes that are consistent in polls dating to 2005. More broadly, three-quarters of Americans say abortion access should be left to women and their doctors, while 20 percent say they should be regulated by law.
Well, those findings are pretty incoherent, are they not? Roe has been overruled, by Casey, which ditched Roe's trimester framework for one involving viability. And what of the 15% who want Roe "overturned" but also think abortion is "between women and their doctors"? And who are these 80% who think abortion should not be "regulated by law"? What, not at all? Back alleys OK after all, then?
As someone above has already said, a proper poll generally finds a substantial majority (two-thirds or more) in favor of legal abortion for 12 weeks or so, and heavy restrictions after that point. But that, of course, is the kind of solution that Roe and Casey will not allow us even to contemplate. It is also, incidentally, the kind of solution that our moral betters in Europe generally have enacted -- enacted, as in, people got to vote on it.
"You mean, that process of properly enacting a law granting a privilege to replace the fabrication of a nonexistent "right.""
I'm sure some of the rights the Court protects are rights that you believe in but others do not. The right to bear arms, perhaps?
"I wish that when our hostess wrote "The good news for supporters of access to abortion is that if the Supreme Court happens to nullify the longstanding right to have an abortion, the strong support from the public ought to lead quickly to statutory law guaranteeing that right" she had specified whether she anticipated federal or state statutes. Because if Roe is overturned, I don't see how this becomes a federal issue. The commerce clause?"
There are many articles on this topic. You know it's the Commerce Clause. Medical care is definitely commercial activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. It's not a problem under the doctrine.
Obviously, states will make their law too, and they can either guarantee access or cut it off, subject to preemption by federal law.
"There are three people involved, the mother, father and baby. A political decision would have balanced the interests of all three and resulted in a law that most of the population could have accepted."
We have that now. The father always gets cut in half.
"The good news for supporters of access to abortion is that if the Supreme Court happens to nullify the longstanding right to have an abortion, the strong support from the public ought to lead quickly to statutory law guaranteeing that right."
That assumes the Supreme Court will just allow a return to the status quo ante and allow each state to decide. But if the Court declares that fetuses at some stage are actually human beings with due process rights, then states won't be able to contravene those rights without a constitutional amendment.
I meant to say: But now, make the moral case for abortion.
But if it's the Commerce Clause, why isn't euthanasia legal in all 50 states? It's "medical care" (or so it's said).
The right to bear arms is in black and white words. Abortion is a penumbra under the privacy penumbra. I don't have any idea what the black and white constitutional words create privacy. Is it a polyglop of separate clauses?
There's plenty of originalistic cover to reverse. But is it prudent?
OR
the Democrats are just doing their usual "Wolf, wolf" nonsense, that they pull everytime there's a SCOTUS abortion case. " OMG, OMG, those crazy rightwing judges are going to overturn Roe v. Wade" - they've been doing that ever since the early 1990s when the SCOTUS supposedly had a five Conservative majority.
@rcocean, it works on Althouse, doesn’t it? Ten times out of ten.
"The right to bear arms, perhaps?"
You mean a right that is actually spelled out in a Constitutional Amendment?
Isn't 2 to 1 enough support to make an amendment? That would clear up the issue right there. Why isn't that done, if this is the actual level of support?
Terry McAuliffe made abortion his number one issue, presenting the overturning of Roe as an established fact. (And if AA has to trot out slanted polls to boost her support of abortion, that shows that she is not as certain as the Court affirming Roe as she says she is.).
McAuliffe made abortion his number one issue -- and tilted to the left Virginia voted for the anti-choice Youngkin.
So much for the Bezos Post. Democracy dies in darkness.
Ann Althouse says "I'm sure some of the rights the Court protects are rights that you believe in but others do not. The right to bear arms, perhaps?" but I think she misses the point. Because there is a second amendment to the US constitution that does in fact say we have a right to bear arms. Now tell me where the constitution explicitly says that we have a right to an abortion. Unfortunately, I have to agree with her that under the current legal regime, the commerce clause can be used to justify a federal abortion law. That said, I think the current legal regime's interpretation of the commerce clause is bonkers and only persists because it provides an all purpose justification for federal power grabs.
I believe you. In Virginia we won because of Suburban moms.
Restricting elective abortion to the first two trimesters is anti-choice, right? The first three, four? For social progress, medical progress, perhaps climate mitigation? When and by whose choice, does a human life acquire and retain her or his right to life?
That said, there is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices, and still six weeks for a wicked solution ("planned parent/hood"). Baby steps.
Roe, Roe, Roe your baby, violently down the river Styx.
Demos-cracy is aborted at the Twilight fringe.
WaPo/ABC/Planned Parenthood poll finds.... Just in time. Right?
Regardless, The Court is unlikely to overrule Roe. If they do. It is more unlikely that most of the people of this country will support adding by statute to the 61 million unborn babies slaughtered except in the hopelessly blue states. This despite the fact that 80 million Americans were purportedly stupid enough to vote for QuidProJoe the Demented.
The Pro-Lifers will be free to focus on publicizing the American Holocaust!
I take it Ann is pro-abortion. She normally hides her position.
This post seems intellectually lazy. The public does not know what "Roe" means. Ann must know that. If the poll included an explanation of "Roe," the numbers would change dramatically.
Even though Ann thinks reversal of Roe (which already was greatly modified by Casey) would help D's (which I think most likely since MSM is pro-abortion), I think she is correct that the political impact cannot be confidently predicted.
Begley wrote: “We really, really need mostly uniform laws across the country. Not one law for TX and NE and another law for NY and CA.”
Because federalism sucks, eh, David?
The Constitution does not exercise liberal license to indulge diversity [dogma] (i.e. color judgment) including ageism and other class-based bigotry. The Twilight Amendment implies an [elective] abortive right when you can get away with it, and other mischief.
"The right to bear arms, perhaps?"
The right to bear, not to abort for social, medical, climate, or "heroic" causes. Self-defense, whether by arms, scalpel, or fist, is a human and civil right.
Elective abortions that are restricted to the first two trimesters is anti-choice, right? To the first three, four? A baby is a clear and progressive "burden".
That said, there is no mystery in sex and conception. A woman and man have four choices, and still six weeks for a wicked solution ("planned parent/hood"). Baby steps. No mandates, but choices.
Slavery, diversity [dogma], elective abortion... An amoral argument, an ethical dilemma, a scientific inconvenience.
Althouse: “I'm sure some of the rights the Court protects are rights that you believe in but others do not. The right to bear arms, perhaps?”
Thanks, Professor. I have been having difficulty distinguishing between enumerated rights and fabricated “emanations from the penumbra[s]”. What a relief to learn there is no difference.
McAuliffe made abortion his number one issue -- and tilted to the left Virginia voted for the anti-choice Youngkin.
Americans overwhelmingly support choice: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion. The Texas scientific compromise still allows six weeks for Choice.
Roe, Roe, Roe your baby, violently down the river Styx.
The baby is not the birthing person's body. The "my body, my choice" argument is better applied to the insertion of the fluid to fertilize the egg.
Am I missing something here? Roe struck down all existing abortion laws in 1973. Does reversing Roe mean those laws are back in operation? If not, abortion is legal in all states unless and until individual states pass laws against it. And if Althouse is right about the polling, that won't happen in the vast majority of states. So why would it even be an issue in federal elections?
Our hostess writes (to me) "You know it's the Commerce Clause. Medical care is definitely commercial activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. It's not a problem under the doctrine."
Actually, I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. I just guessed (correctly it seems). But it also appears to me that the Roberts court is steadily eroding what can be supported by the Commerce Clause. They denied its use for a health insurance mandate for instance.
I will take our hostess's word for it that under existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence, justifying putting abortion legality into federal law is valid. But, to me, that just shows what bullshit existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence is. Getting an abortion might be commerce, but it certainly isn't interstate. (And yes, I do know this is covered in Wickard, but, again, Wickard is dishonest bullshit).
When and by whose choice, does a human life acquire and retain her or his right to life?
According to the Roe/Casey mentality, if you have diminished lung capacity, if you need assistance breathing or eating, i.e. you are not "viable," then you have no right to live and laws to protect your life are illegal.
"Americans say by a roughly 2-to-1 margin that the Supreme Court should uphold its landmark abortion decision in Roe v. Wade..."
If that were actually true, teh Democrats would be eager for SCOTUS to toss Roe, because then it would be a winning electoral issue for them.
The fact that they throw foaming mouth screed out whenever "Roe" is threatened tells us they don't in fact believe that.
I expect a large number of US States will make 1st trimester abortions legal after SCOTUS strikes down Roe and Casey.
What almost no States will do is be as lunatic pro-abortion extremist as SCOTUS is now, and as the Dems are now.
Because murdering a baby who managed to survive the abortion is something the vast majority of Americans want to punish, but the Democrat elected officials refuse to allow.
And that's just one example of the Democrats far left lunacy on abortion
Althouse: “I'm sure some of the rights the Court protects are rights that you believe in but others do not. The right to bear arms, perhaps?”
You've got that completely wrong.
It's not the job of SCOTUS to "protect" any "rights". It's the job of SCOTUS to enforce the written US Constitution as its various parts were understood when they were adopted.
It's not SCOTUS that "protects rights", it's the US Constitution.
Your problem is that even you know that the US Constitution doesn't protect a "right to abortion", that it's complete bullshit made up by SCOTUS, and that there's therefore no honest and logically consistent way to defend it.
All you have is "I want it, I'm the Queen of the World, and therefore nothing, not the written law, not the written Constitution, not democracy, nothing shall interfere with what I want."
The right to bear arms is in black and white words. Abortion is a penumbra under the privacy penumbra.
I'm surprised at the irrational desire to save Roe. I thought Althouse and modern feminism had moved onto the 14th Amendment instead?
The State hurdle for Amendment is 3:1. That's why the Second Amendment won't be overturned.
I'm sure some of the rights the Court protects are rights that you believe in but others do not. The right to bear arms, perhaps?
Believe it or not I try to be respectful of our host, but this is fucking ridiculous!
You taught Constitutional law for Christ's sake!
The "right" to an abortion is a "right" that was invented in 1973 using "emanations" from a "penumbra" to create a "right to privacy" that includes a "right to an abortion" when neither the word "privacy" or "abortion" appears in the Constitution, and at the time the Constitution was written and passed abortionists were considered murderers.
Yet the right to bear arms does appear explicitly in the Constitution and was written and passed by a generation that had just successfully fought a war of liberation (that began with an attempt by the government to seize privately owned weapons and ammunition) because it was common for men of the day to be armed with military grade (or better) weapons. It was written by men who continued to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal through the War of 1812. Under the original meaning and intent of the Second Amendment it would be completely legal for Bezos or Musk to own and operate a fully armed and staffed Ford class aircraft carrier.
Greg the Class Trader:. The constitution is mute on the wherefore and whyfores of the Supreme overrule. The framers left it up to the Court to enumerate their own powers and they took it:
In 1803, Marbury v. Madison[3] was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the end of his opinion in this decision,[4] Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as instructed in Article Six of the Constitution.
Wilson Carroll,
That's a good point. But I wonder what would happen if SCOTUS did do that -- if it declared, e.g., that a post-viability fetus is basically a human infant, and therefore has all the rights that accrue to a human infant. Would the public rebel, or would it sit back on its ample haunches and think?
Anti-abortion protesters use photos of dismembered children on their posters because the idea of tiny severed, torn-off human arms and legs is distressing to a lot of people. And Project Veritas made headway b/c an abortionist casually discussing, over the Chardonnay and canapes, how she could "crush" here or there, depending on which body part the purchaser might want at the moment, was also off-putting to a lot of people. (Sorry, there is no "context" that makes that look better. None.)
I think a largeish majority of Americans are more or less OK with abortion of something that doesn't yet look terribly human. (Or sound terribly human, either: "blastocyst" is a very useful word in that regard.) But once the thing in the womb is recognizably a human child, support drops rather precipitously. If SCOTUS did such a thing, how many Americans might rethink their own positions?
"The good news for supporters of access to abortion is that if the Supreme Court happens to nullify the longstanding right to have an abortion, the strong support from the public ought to lead quickly to statutory law guaranteeing that right."
Yes, indeed. And the bad news would be that the poll is a crock, like pretty much everything else those assholes publish.
I think people like Begley who believe, "We really, really need mostly uniform laws across the country. Not one law for TX and NE and another law for NY and CA," believe that because they think the outcome will be that NY and CA laws will be imposed on TX and NE. But what if TX and NE laws are imposed on NY and CA? Is that kind of uniformity of laws what you hope for? If not, it's not really "uniformity of laws" that you seek.
Democrats could really score some points if they would offer free abortions to all black women. Up to the 4th trimester. In the interest of racial equity, of course.
Besides, any woman wanting an abortion would make a shitty mother anyways. Best to nip the problem in the bud, so to speak.
Howard said...
Greg the Class Trader:. The constitution is mute on the wherefore and whyfores of the Supreme overrule. The framers left it up to the Court to enumerate their own powers and they took it:
Article V of teh US Constitution specifies how you change the US Constitution. It creates a massive system with strong checks and balances.
Somehow they forgot to say "oh, and a majority of the Supreme Court can change the US Constitution at will", which is the fantasy of the "living consitution" people, and of Althouse and every other Roe supporter.
The US Constitution creates a government of limited and enumerated powers. Which is entirely inconsistent with the idea of a "Supreme Court" that has unlimited and unenumerated powers
Because Pollsters are never wrong...
With overwhelming support like that...SCOTUS should run like the wind away from mandating abortion by judicial fiat.
The People are making the decision at the State level. Exactly as the Constitution prescribes. Leave the People alone to govern without judicial interference.
In 1803, Marbury v. Madison[3] was the first Supreme Court case where the Court asserted its authority to strike down a law as unconstitutional. At the end of his opinion in this decision,[4] Chief Justice John Marshall maintained that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution as instructed in Article Six of the Constitution.
I mention this every time it comes up, because more people need to be aware of it. Marbury is a fraud and an illegitimate decision. Marshall should have been forced to recuse himself from the case at the very least. It was Marshall himself who deliberately created the controversy that brought the case to the Supreme Court while he was serving simultaneously as Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (Imagine that happening today!)
Ann took some flack here, but I think it was well deserved. She knows the public does not understand Roe. She also knows the "constitutional right" to abortion is far different than the express constitutional rights to bear arms and free speech. A rare occasion where Ann's passion for abortion rights obscures her judgment - perhaps cognitive dissonance.
Maybe your most Catholic Supreme Court will overturn Marbury v Madison and completely de-nut itself. Then they can go on to adjudicate DC parking tickets.
Interpretation of the constitution is not technically changing the constitution. It's only changing it if you don't like it.
Life is messy, get used to it.
Howard said...
Maybe your most Catholic Supreme Court will overturn Marbury v Madison and completely de-nut itself. Then they can go on to adjudicate DC parking tickets.
Are you really that stupid? What % of Supreme Court rulings are on Constitutional issues, especially the invention of new "rights", compared to "the laws and Constitution interact to produce this result"? 5%? Less?
Ah, no, you're not an idiot, you're an evil liar. Because you know that the policies you want are not in fact Constitutional, and it would "de-nut" the left wing scum you so love
Interpretation of the constitution is not technically changing the constitution. It's only changing it if you don't like it.
"Living Constitution" "interpretation" is about changing the US Constitution to suit the modern "Justices" political beliefs. you know that, I know that, so does everyone else.
Feel free to keep on lying about it, but no one's buying.
On that poll:
Thus, survey respondents were asked if they would favor or oppose a ruling to "uphold a state law that (except in cases of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities) bans abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy" or if they haven't heard enough about this to have an opinion. Thirty-seven percent favor a decision upholding such a law, while 32% would oppose such a ruling and 30% say they haven't heard enough. In September, 40% favored upholding such a law, 34% opposed such a law, and 27% said they hadn't heard enough.
So much for "2 to 1 support Roe", since that description is basically the Mississippi law that leftists are so hot to strike down
Post a Comment