Althouse: "As President, I will codify Roe v. Wade and my Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate a woman’s protected, constitutional right to choose."

June 25, 2022

"As President, I will codify Roe v. Wade and my Justice Department will do everything in its power to stop the rash of state laws that so blatantly violate a woman’s protected, constitutional right to choose."

Wrote Joe Biden, June 29, 2020.

Later that year, Biden was elected President.

Two years from that date, the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade.

Because Roe v. Wade was not codified, abortion is now illegal in many of the states.

88 comments:

David Begley said...: Biden is a complete failure.; 6/25/22, 7:29 AM
gilbar said...: HOW, exactly,
would a "President" of the federal government "codify" something that they have no power to do?; 6/25/22, 7:34 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: And I for one, want that passivity to continue.

Although, if I may something, in defence of this White House, wrecking the American economy does require a lot of attention and expertise.

Did this White House even discus abortion? Freedom of Information Requests should be able to give an answer.; 6/25/22, 7:37 AM
wendybar said...: Joe Biden was AGAINST abortion for many years, before he was brainwashed into the Progressive talking points he spews today....https://www.catholicleague.org/bidens-evolving-views-on-abortion/; 6/25/22, 7:41 AM
Tom said...: Dems have the votes and refuse to get it done. They risked abortion rights to keep a wedge issue alive. Meanwhile, they’ve been focused on pronouns and Jan 6.

Conservatives worked for 40-50 years to overturn Roe and expand self-defense rights by focusing on the federal judiciary and the SCOTUS. And Trump pushed victory over the top.

So now Dems either kill the filibuster, codify Roe, and/or pack the court. These options have consequences.; 6/25/22, 7:42 AM
R C Belaire said...: Another day at the "office" for Slow Joe...; 6/25/22, 7:47 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Explain how you codify Abortion?; 6/25/22, 7:49 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: Dems+Facui Gain of Function + Chi Coms ruined our, and the world's economy.

But at least they rid themselves of Orange man Bad. Tho - they cannot live without him. the left feed off the hate.; 6/25/22, 7:55 AM
jaydub said...: Okay. So he lied. He lies about everything, from having marched in civil rights protests, to having been arrested with Nelson Mandela, to getting an appointment to the Naval Academy, to finishing in the top 10% of his class in law school, to getting three undergraduate degrees, to having driven an 18 wheeler, to his first wife having been killed by a drunk driver, and too many others. In fact, lying is the only skill he has that surpasses his skill at plagiarism, although grifting certainly comes in a close third and parenting a more distant fourth. So how many people voted for him because he would preserve Roe v Wade? 81 million? He just handled that task just as competently as he has handled inflation, energy, Afghanistan, the supply chain, and every other thing he touches. What do you expect from a senile old coot who takes a four day workweek every week? Elections have consequences, and we're all living the consequences of his election. Enjoy!; 6/25/22, 7:59 AM
MayBee said...: I guess lawmakers are going to have to try to make some laws.

Put their ideas on the table, and let voters decide.

I think Republicans will overstep and try to make abortion illegal in too many places.
And Dems will overstep and try to make abortion legal up to 40 weeks and talk about "birthing people" and men who menstruate.
That's what I think will happen.
But it'd be cool to have a real debate about what laws people want in each state and get those laws passed.; 6/25/22, 8:02 AM
Bob Boyd said...: Don't blame Biden. He just forgot. The cheese slipped off his cracker a while ago.; 6/25/22, 8:03 AM
rhhardin said...: Abortion is not something the feds can codify.; 6/25/22, 8:05 AM
Lloyd W. Robertson said...: If pro-choicers don't have the votes to launch a constitutional amendment (two-thirds vote of both Houses, then to three-fifths of states (either state legislatures or special ratifying conventions); or a national convention called by two-thirds of the states, then again three-fifths of the states); why would passage of a bill with 50% +1 of both Houses impress anyone? In what way is this more impressive than 6 out of 9 on the Court?

Thomas is unique, I guess, in taking up substantive due process. He seems to argue this was always a mistake. In Dred Scott and Lochner, substantive due process (not called that) swung to the right: given that property owners hold one of the essential rights of a liberal regime, how far do their rights extend against any possible government action? The counter argument from the left became more powerful in the twentieth century. Property owners can take care of themselves, and some restriction on their rights is good public policy. What is needed is a way of protecting people who are not sufficiently protected by "due process": the "rules" may systematically ignore or disadvantage them. Some kind of correction is needed to bring them to roughly the status of "ordinary" property owners.

Social conservatives: minority religions might suffer at the hands of a majority religion (even without "establishment"); religious people in general might suffer in a secular society. This goes back to an enumerated right in the Constitution. Liberals: people outside heteronormal white cismales might suffer; they have a right to prevention and remediation of unfairness. This does not refer so clearly to enumerated rights. Thomas seems to say: no constitutional right to contraception, specific types of sex, gay marriage.; 6/25/22, 8:05 AM
Maynard said...: Dems are only using this as a political and fundraising issue.

Why else would Schumer's proposed Senate bill guarantee the "right" to abortion up to the moment of delivery?

If Congress passed a bill allowing abortion up to 16 weeks or so, it would be supported by a large majority of Americans. But that will not serve the Democrats purpose (nor those who oppose abortion at any time).; 6/25/22, 8:07 AM
cubanbob said...: I would be amazed if the Democrats don't rush a bill to codify Roe while they still can. This is one issue every Democrat along with a few squish Republicans will vote for and Biden would sign. Their window is short so I expect them to get moving this next week.; 6/25/22, 8:08 AM
Michael said...: "Because Roe v. Wade was not codified, abortion is now illegal in many of the states."

Abortion is not illegal in any state. It is restricted in some, generally with respect to term. The Mississippi law upheld by SCOTUS is still less restrictive than the national law in France or Sweden, no? And a Federal "codification" would be unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, would it not?

Progressives could always try persuading the voters in the states to agree with them, but they seem to find that tedious.; 6/25/22, 8:10 AM
exhelodrvr1 said...: Thank God!; 6/25/22, 8:14 AM
Wilbur said...: Tom said...
Dems have the votes and refuse to get it done. They risked abortion rights to keep a wedge issue alive.

This explains it perfectly.

The Democrat Party leaders view an unsettled abortion issue to be more valuable as a fund-raising vehicle than to settle it (at least temporarily) substantively through legislation.

Political parties do a lot of things that conflict with what they say.; 6/25/22, 8:14 AM
Mike Sylwester said...: Biden sure does not want the state legislatures to make the abortions laws.

He insists that those laws be made only by the US Supreme Court justices or else by the US Congress or else by the US President issuing executive orders.; 6/25/22, 8:18 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Abortion is not something the feds can codify."

If they do commerce power, it will give the Court's conservatives something else to attack.

The easiest route is the spending power (conditional spending), though that too will give the Court an option to go after something else.

Now that stare decisis is at a low ebb.; 6/25/22, 8:25 AM
Leland said...: It's all about fundraising. Politically, this is just like Republicans failing to overturn Obamacare, with the exception that Trump at least tried. Politics needs to be boring so that politicians give up trying to make a spectacle of everything and make an honest living. That's never going to happen.; 6/25/22, 8:27 AM
ga6 said...: Too busy starting small wars, being green, worrying about white men with guns, and most of all being gay in all its varieties.; 6/25/22, 8:37 AM
Another old lawyer said...: Ds can't federally codify abortion now; they don't have the votes. But abortion codification might be the fastest route to getting the Supreme Court to adopt an interpretation of the Commerce Clause that has an actual limiting principle.; 6/25/22, 8:45 AM
Chris Lopes said...: "But it'd be cool to have a real debate about what laws people want in each state and get those laws passed."

That's just crazy talk.

"Progressives could always try persuading the voters in the states to agree with them"

Even more crazy talk.; 6/25/22, 8:48 AM
Milo Minderbinder said...: It was a legislature-thingy, was it?

Just riot in the streets. It makes so much headway when the other side does that.; 6/25/22, 8:49 AM
Achilles said...: Tom said...

Conservatives worked for 40-50 years to overturn Roe and expand self-defense rights by focusing on the federal judiciary and the SCOTUS. And Trump pushed victory over the top.

Republican politicians said lots of things for lots of years. Did nothing.

Trump did what he said he would.; 6/25/22, 8:57 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Yes Yang is correct. Nancy is out there waving her claws wildly and saying she needs a majority to get this passed. But she is in the majority right now. No wonder protests are fizzling out.; 6/25/22, 9:00 AM
Achilles said...: Ann Althouse said...

"Abortion is not something the feds can codify."

If they do commerce power, it will give the Court's conservatives something else to attack.

The easiest route is the spending power (conditional spending), though that too will give the Court an option to go after something else.

Now that stare decisis is at a low ebb.

Stare Decisis = federal government doing things it was never meant to do?

That is a strange idea. How do you support that?

When the feds want to seize power from the states that the constitution did not give them the commerce clause is the go to tool.

The commerce clause power grabs are just as corrosive and ridiculous as the Roe decision.; 6/25/22, 9:02 AM
What's emanating from your penumbra said...: Even after the leak, when they well knew it was coming, and they still controlled congress, they didn't do anything to pass a law. Sure, Elizabeth Warren issued more finger wagging, lip shaking hysterical displays of self-aggrandizement. But that's every day. Could it possibly be a cynical political calculation?; 6/25/22, 9:02 AM
DINKY DAU 45 said...: Debate on web blogs and at the water coolers around the country are just that. The only thing that will make any changes are women voters and men supporters leaning one way or the other in November ,all the rest is just conjecture and bantering. Time will tell. This has been an effort for decades so no one should be surprised. Winning the SCOTUS and the courts was an obvious goal that was stated many times. Mitch told the population. The previous president also stated his goal for ROE'S demise. Time will tell; 6/25/22, 9:17 AM
hawkeyedjb said...: "Now that stare decisis is at a low ebb" perhaps let's quit legislating via the courts? Using the Supreme Court to promulgate laws is full of pitfalls and dangers. That danger is not so concentrated if you rely more on the states and the legislatures. Mississippi has no ability to make abortion illegal or difficult to obtain anywhere except Mississippi.

This half-century battle over abortion was set off by the Court. Way back when states went their own way, abortion law was being liberalized and there was no great national struggle over it. That liberalization would have continued, and abortion would be a minor issue. It was the Court's decision to override everybody else's judgement that marked the start of this all-or-nothing war. Those who want to nationalize everything want the war to continue, but that's a grave mistake. How would you make abortion illegal in California? Only via national law.; 6/25/22, 9:21 AM
Bender said...: Of course, any competent lawyer can tell you that Congress has no constitutional authority to prohibit state laws protecting prenatal life.; 6/25/22, 9:29 AM
gilbar said...: meanwhile, up in Canada...
https://thepostmillennial.com/trudeau-says-no-govt-should-tell-a-woman-what-she-can-and-cant-do-with-her-body-the-same-day-he-defends-vax-mandates; 6/25/22, 9:34 AM
Narayanan said...: Joe Biden was AGAINST abortion for many years,
=========
abortion even if motivated by economics is often chosen to select against baby girls >>> so there could be some sinuous wending to Biden thought process; 6/25/22, 9:36 AM
Narayanan said...: Now that stare decisis is at a low ebb.
==========
why is stare decisis venerated szzo much :==: because it provides a starting point for analysis/thinking rather than starting with more basic prenises like individual rights and freedom >>> which ends in codify disdain for due process etc.? while at same time conceal legal acumen!; 6/25/22, 9:47 AM
PB said...: Like Obama, Biden is a lazy SOB. He had plenty of time and a Democrat House and Senate to make it happen. Just like Obama had plenty of time to put forward his healthcare bill, but had to jam it thru in a sorry state after losing the House and Senate, when if he had just expanded Medicaid, he would have achieved that same results. We are left with rapidly increasing healthcare costs and rapidly increasing insurance costs, due to the massive consolidation in the healthcare provider market that has led to monopolistic pricing.; 6/25/22, 9:49 AM
LA_Bob said...: Seems likely the Abortions Wars will go on ad infinitum. If Congressional Democrats can codify Roe / Casey into Federal law, it will just be another decade (or three or four) of court challenges and legislative battles. A future, more conservative Congress would likely "uncode" it.

A future, "liberal" Supreme Court will accept a case, probably from Mississippi, challenging the state's comprehensive ban on abortion. The Court will reinstate Roe / Casey, and off we go again!; 6/25/22, 9:53 AM
Narayanan said...: Now that stare decisis is at a low ebb.
==========
why is stare decisis venerated szzo much :==: because it provides a starting point for analysis/thinking rather than starting with more basic prenises like individual rights and freedom >>> which ends in codify disdain for due process etc.? while at same time conceal legal acumen!; 6/25/22, 9:55 AM
Yancey Ward said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/25/22, 9:56 AM
Yancey Ward said...: I wonder- if they offered up in Congress the Mississippi law that was just upheld, would it clear the 60 vote threshold in the Senate? I think it might have a few weeks ago, but can't be sure. Of course, Democrats could have codified abortion anytime between 1977-1981, 1993-2001, and 2009-2011, but didn't even bother trying, so one must ask why they never did this.

I would be surprised if the protests on this are even 1/100th as intense as the BLM/Antifa riots of 2020- I don't think there really is all that much support for abortion after the first 3 months of pregnancy- probably no more than 5-10% of the population- and abortion is likely to remain legal in most of the country up to 10-20 weeks post fertilization, with the gray areas of identifiable development stages fuzzing it up to 20-25 weeks. And even in the states that ban it altogether, abortion supporters can put their wallets where their mouths are and pay for the travel with 501C organizations, or directly out of pocket.; 6/25/22, 9:57 AM
Yancey Ward said...: As for a federal law itself, Democrats might want to consider this- if Congress really does have the power to make abortion legal in all 50 states, then Congress also has the power to make it illegal.; 6/25/22, 10:03 AM
Butkus51 said...: Im still waiting for the seas to part; 6/25/22, 10:03 AM
Kevin said...: Didn't Schumer try to codify Roe?

Didn't he go too far for even members of his own party?

Didn't he instead wish to have the issue rather than redraft the bill?; 6/25/22, 10:09 AM
Kevin said...: The White House staff failed Biden. They forgot to add this to his cue card:

YOU will codify Roe.; 6/25/22, 10:10 AM
rcocean said...: Not too sure how they're going to stop states from banning abortion. But I'm sure they will try. No doubt the Liberal/left district and appellete judges will continue to ban pro-life legislation and will dare the SCOTUS to overrule them.

IRC, this is what happened with Gerrymandering.; 6/25/22, 10:23 AM
rcocean said...: It'll be interesing to see if they can get 10 RINOs in the Senate to help codify abortion. They got 14 for gun control, and I think Romney, collins, and Lisa Murkey would LOVE to help Biden, but such a betrayal might be too much even for Mitch.; 6/25/22, 10:25 AM
who-knew said...: Ann Althouse said: "
If they do commerce power, it will give the Court's conservatives something else to attack.

The easiest route is the spending power (conditional spending), though that too will give the Court an option to go after something else."

Revisiting the scope of the commerce clause is longer overdue than Roe. By the plain meaning of the constitution, Wickard v Fillmore is flat out wrong, It's not interstate commerce if it's not both 'commerce' and 'interstate' Growing wheat on your own land to feed your own cattle is neither. Yet on that shaky foundation has grown almost the entirety of the administrative state that is crushing "our democracy" (TM - Nancy Pelosi); 6/25/22, 10:29 AM
Michael K said...: Brandon proposed a Constitutional amendment to over turn Roe back in 1982 before he was senile.; 6/25/22, 10:39 AM
Bender said...: "Now that stare decisis is at a low ebb"

Please. Constitutional law is not like calling "dibs" for a seat, much less is it the first person to shove someone else off their seat gets to keep it.

The pro-abortionists got 70 million dead out of their hijacking of the Constitution. Isn't that enough?; 6/25/22, 10:40 AM
Lucien said...: Abortion rights advocates are no longer hampered by the ball and chain embodied by the flawed decisions in Casey and Roe. They can seek to formulate new constitutional grounds for legal challenges to state laws; and on the legislative side they can draft provisions that don’t pretend fidelity to trimesters (sorry n.n.), viability, or emanating penumbras.

They’ve been liberated, and the sooner they realize it, the better for their side.; 6/25/22, 10:43 AM
Free Manure While You Wait! said...: The states that do not allow or severely restrict abortion are the red states, not the blue ones. It's funny to see Progressives suddenly start caring about the freedoms of those red state's female citizens.; 6/25/22, 10:55 AM
minnesota farm guy said...: I checked online Wapo, NYT, Boston Globe and WSJ. Apparently only Boston had a "protest' of what the Globe claims were several thousand people , but photos don't show " massive" crowds. And this is in MA where the SCOTUS opinion will have no practical impact. UMN students protested, but that's what they do. There were some small protests throughout Wi. Mostly look like the young and ignorant. The Houston Chronicle recognizes that the decision returns the issue to the states and mentions no protests.

The lack of intensity demonstrates why the Dems have not done other than use abortion for fund raising. Opinion pro and con is pretty evenly split with any number of variants on either side. Clearly this always should have been debated and legislated in the much smaller, regional venues of the states.

As for Joe he is a puppet being run by God knows who. There is no way that he can convince the Senate to override the SCOTUS decision.; 6/25/22, 10:57 AM
Tom said...: There’s a profound moral and constitutional question that SCOTUS cannot resolve. It’s the question of when equal protection begins. Is when a person is fully and completely birthed? Or, does equal protection begin at some point prior in the pregnancy? Should we argue that equal projection of life begins well after a complete birth?

The court rightly decided that because this unanswered question involved a potential person, the proper place to resolve the completing rights of the mother and the unborn child are in the states through the people and their elected representatives.

The pendulum swung way right yesterday after swinging far too left for 50 years. But now we finally get to have the state by state debate that an unborn life deserves. Thankfully the SCOTUS also secured our right to self defense the day prior.

Btw, since the SCOTUS has confirmed that the second amendment does involve a right to self defense, is there now a second amendment argument for abortion where the mothers life is at risk?; 6/25/22, 11:06 AM
Josephbleau said...: “Now that stare decisis is at a low ebb.”

To me, stare decisis is like naming a river. The one who gets there first gets to have her way, and then says na na na na naaaa naaa, you can’t change it now!; 6/25/22, 11:17 AM
Gahrie said...: Now that stare decisis is at a low ebb.

Now doBrown v. Board of Education.; 6/25/22, 11:50 AM
Indigo Red said...: Across the street from Ben Franklin's Philadelphia printing office was an abortionist's office. A sign over the door announced the service. With Ben's dalliances, and the common morality of the time (and all time,) that abortionist was probably kept fairly busy. Although I am not favorable of abortion, some things should not be subject to the approval or disapproval of laws as so much of life has become. Personal things like marriage, keeping pets, smoking, sugar consumption, and abortion ain't nobody's business but their own.; 6/25/22, 12:17 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: “Now that stare decisis is at a low ebb.”

Not really. Yes, the abortion decision overturned Roe and Casey. But the equally important gun decision, if anything, solidified it. But deep down, you must have known, every time you taught those cases, that they were sitting on sand. Over 30 years ago, my Very liberal Con Law prof tried to point this out in class, and half the class marched to the Dean’s office to protest. Not only was Roe built on a foundation of sand, it was bad because it usurped a political decision with a judicial one, and failing to allow the politics to solidify a majority acceptable position in the middle, resulting in a half century of turmoil and strife, that never needed to happen.

Stare Decisis is important for the stability of our British/American judicial system. But here, it has worked as a ratchet, shifting the law in this country, with Casey, far out of where the majority are comfortable. As others above have pointed out, the popular consensus is somewhere in the middle, and, indeed, I would suggest, very possibly not that far from Roe’s trimester approach. But it has ratcheted so far as protecting 9th month abortions with Casey. Very few people in this country actually support that. At that point, babies delivered by Emergency C Sections probably don’t even need an incubator to survive. But then courts have gone further, proving in some cases, post birth abortions. The thin line between abortion and infanticide in 3rd trimester abortions has, in those cases, been effectively erased.

There are times when the law has pushed and ratcheted too far in one direction, and it needs to be pruned back. Think of the classic cases: Dred Scott, Plessy, etc. I would suggest that if you truly believe that stare decisis with those cases should have been overturned and rejected, but not in this case, that you should make your argument why blind obedience to stare decisis here is justified, but not in those cases.; 6/25/22, 12:18 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Explain how you codify Abortion?

Senator Warren (known to MAGA as Pokahontas) said, “Let the baby mamas come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of unplanned parenthood belongs to such as these.”; 6/25/22, 12:30 PM
Rabel said...: If I don't see buildings aflame and blood (menstrual or otherwise) in the streets tonight I'm going to start to thinking that the left isn't as concerned about abortions as they say they are.

Come on girls. Lets get this party started.; 6/25/22, 12:43 PM
Bill Peschel said...: Abortion is now illegal in many of the states."

Currently at Politico:

Abortion remains legal or legal for now in 35 states.
Abortion is potentially illegal or soon to be illegal in 11 states.
Abortion is illegal in 5 states.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "many."; 6/25/22, 12:44 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Now that the agathokakological stare decisis is at a low ebb. (🤔)

It's a rare word, though it's obviously useful, so please try to use it!

Mission Accomplished.

Though I think Pollo beat me to it.; 6/25/22, 12:47 PM
Gospace said...: Free Manure While You Wait! said...
The states that do not allow or severely restrict abortion are the red states, not the blue ones. It's funny to see Progressives suddenly start caring about the freedoms of those red state's female citizens.

Ummm... No.

Just yesterday in the comment section:
Gusty Winds said...
The Wisconsin Attorney General, Josh Kaul, says he won’t enforce the 1849 law banning abortion in our once great state. He doesn’t enforce election laws either. What’s the big deal?

Part of the laziness of Democrats- they won a decision in the SC, never thought that it might be overturned, and never updated their laws. Wisconsin is likely not the only state with restrictive laws actually on the books that have never been repealed nor replaced. Wisconsin has rural conservative areas also. I don't thing the state AG can stop county prosecutors from enforcing the laws.; 6/25/22, 12:49 PM
Saint Croix said...: Apparently they don't have the votes.

All Republicans and one Democrat opposed it in the evenly divided Senate, where ties are broken by a vote from the vice-president.

I'm assuming that the Democrat was Joe Manchin, who's pro-life and represents a pro-life state.

There are at least two Republicans who are pro-choice (Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski), so it's interesting that they voted against the bill.; 6/25/22, 12:50 PM
Saint Croix said...: Abortion is not illegal in any state.

You're wrong.; 6/25/22, 12:54 PM
Saint Croix said...: Abortion is not illegal in any state.

You're wrong.; 6/25/22, 12:57 PM
ccscientist said...: Please name the states where abortion is illegal. I don't think there are any. Some states have some restrictions.
Under a republic, Congress can neither legislate gun law nor abortion. They want to prove they are "doing something" but it is up to the states.; 6/25/22, 12:59 PM
Tina Trent said...: You don't fix problems that energize people to go to the polls.; 6/25/22, 1:10 PM
Stephen said...: He has tried, but doesn't have the votes in the Senate, given the filibuster. What more could have done?; 6/25/22, 1:17 PM
Narayanan said...: The easiest route is the spending power (conditional spending),
====
Professora : request elucidate edumacate revise and extend remarks!

if fetus/baby = tax then bird and bee can be fish

california bees are fish

... They did this to include stuff like starfish and sea sponges, but they didn't specify aquatic invertebrates. They just said "invertebrate." ...; 6/25/22, 2:33 PM
realestateacct said...: Compare and contrast with what Trump promised to do when he first ran. One of the things was appoint justices who would overturn Roe.; 6/25/22, 2:39 PM
realestateacct said...: Saint Croix, Collins and Murkowski are in favor of abortion rights up until viability. The bill that was presented allowed abortion up until birth. They could have pretty easily passed a bill allowing abortion until 20 weeks but the Democrats did not allow such a bill to come to the floor.; 6/25/22, 2:42 PM
John Althouse Cohen said...: To the folks saying abortion isn’t “illegal” in any US state: would you also say guns aren’t “illegal” in any state because some people in every state can have guns?; 6/25/22, 2:47 PM
Bender said...: the popular consensus is somewhere in the middle, and, indeed, I would suggest, very possibly not that far from Roe’s trimester approach

You wonder why that is?

It's not by coincidence. Roe has been a sixteen-ton thumb on the scale of public opinion for five decades, including both the trimester approach and the dehumanization of babies in utero.

Check back in a few years and see how great public opinion is for abortions at 6-12 weeks now that Roe is no longer there for people to pretend that such babies are less human and less living than those who die in the horrific tragedy of a natural miscarriage.; 6/25/22, 2:57 PM
Caligula said...: And where, exactly, is the federal government going to find a Constitutional (enumerated power) with which to do this?

If abortion is considered a medical procedure, is not the practice of medicine universally regulated at the state level (with the exception of prescription drugs and medical devices, which are sold in interstate commerce)?

I realize our President is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier but, where, exactly does the federal government get the authority to do this?; 6/25/22, 3:24 PM
rwnutjob said...: You crazy son of a bitch, you did it.
Trump: I’ll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion case

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html; 6/25/22, 3:44 PM
Mikey NTH said...: I just drove by the capitol building in Lansing, Michigan. It was calm, little going on. Certainly no riots or other demonstrations that I could see. Perhaps a lot of the drama isn't so dramatic after all? Just anti-climatic?; 6/25/22, 3:48 PM
cubanbob said...: Considering the Obamacare decision forbids Congress from coercing the States it maybe the if Congress were to impose national abortion by withholding funds it might backfire on Obamacare.; 6/25/22, 4:34 PM
gilbar said...: John Althouse Cohen said...
To the folks saying abortion isn’t “illegal” in any US state: would you also say guns aren’t “illegal” in any state because some people in every state can have guns?

Can you think of any differences between these two "rights"
hint: "shall not be infringed"; 6/25/22, 5:01 PM
Drago said...: cubanbob: "Considering the Obamacare decision forbids Congress from coercing the States it maybe the if Congress were to impose national abortion by withholding funds it might backfire on Obamacare."

Roberts will simply rewrite the law again to save obamacare.; 6/25/22, 5:14 PM
rob5819 said...: "To the folks saying abortion isn’t “illegal” in any US state: would you also say guns aren’t “illegal” in any state because some people in every state can have guns?"

Make a coherent argument. Compare "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," with . . . the part of the US Constitution that talks about abortion.

You can hate guns and love abortion, but you cannot argue they have the same protection under the Constitution.; 6/25/22, 6:44 PM
Chris Lopes said...: "Personal things like marriage, keeping pets, smoking, sugar consumption, and abortion ain't nobody's business but their own."

I would add owning slaves to the list.; 6/25/22, 7:07 PM
Mason G said...: "Make a coherent argument. Compare "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," with . . . the part of the US Constitution that talks about abortion."

I was thinking about making a similar comment earlier, but figured that no such argument would be forthcoming. So I let it go.; 6/25/22, 9:25 PM
Unknown said...: "Now that stare decisis is at a low ebb."

Can you flesh this out? I would like to see your view on this elucidated, although I understand the nature of blogging as your form of writing. It would be great if you provided more of your views and knowledge of Con Law, although I understand you have retired from that and we aren't paying students. Nonetheless.; 6/25/22, 9:26 PM
stlcdr said...: This demonstrates that Democrats have no interest in solving problems, for, what should be a very small minority. Generate rage, blame the evil republicans, and - as noted above - get people to vote against The enemy (sic). This is not about The People, but the Grifters.; 6/26/22, 7:26 AM
farmgirl said...: Praise the Lord!!!!; 6/26/22, 10:03 AM
Indigo Red said...: "I would add owning slaves to the list."

Why on earth would you do that?; 6/26/22, 11:08 AM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: "Now that stare decisis is at a low ebb."

I'd say it was at a far "lower ebb" when Lawrence v Texas and then Obergefell struck down multiple precedents and thousands of years of human history.

Bruen is simply SCOTUS finally saying "dudes, we meant it in Heller the 1st time", after all

Now, there are a lot of really bad left wing SCOTUS precedents on the books, all of which should be overturned (starting with Wickard v Filburn). And with 6 at least occasionally honest members of SCOTUS, we may see a bunch of them dumped for being "wrong when decided", which they all are.

But stare decisis has been at a low ebb at least since the New Deal Court started approving FDR's assaults on the US Constitution. The only difference is that now it's the Left that's invested in the stare decisis

IMAO; 6/26/22, 1:01 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: John Althouse Cohen said...
To the folks saying abortion isn’t “illegal” in any US state: would you also say guns aren’t “illegal” in any state because some people in every state can have guns?

Could you share with us where someone has claimed that "guns are illegal"? As opposed to saying "6 States don't allow ordinary people to care guns for their protection, only the rich and connected"?

The biggest problem with the Left is you all don't appear to have any idea who to do anything other than beat up straw men.

John, how many right wing blogs / websites do you read (no, your mother's blog doesn't count. She's left wing). Do you ever read / listen to the other side, or do you just go by what your ignorant co-religionists (the Left) have to say?; 6/26/22, 1:15 PM