The Plan to Overturn Roe v. Wade Is Already In Motion

[DonViejo]

June 29, 2018 at 6:52 am EDT By Taegan Goddard

“Now that President Trump has the opportunity to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court, some abortion opponents hope that Roe v. Wade will end up overturned or gutted — and they have already been working towards that moment,” CNN reports.

“Over the past year, state legislatures in Iowa, Louisiana and Mississippi have advanced strict limits on abortion that some lawmakers believe could trigger a successful challenge to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide.”

However, leaders of the antiabortion movement tell the Washington Post “that they are in no hurry to overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision, saying they plan to stick with their long-standing strategy of pushing for incremental restrictions despite the tantalizing prospect of a more conservative Supreme Court.”

###

https://politicalwire.com/2018/06/29/the-plan-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-is-already-in-motion/

[unblock]

1. i suspect they won't overturn it outright. it's the goose that laid the golden egg for them

there are a lot of involuntary pregnancy fanatics who are republicans because if the single issue of opposition to roe v. wade.

if they overturn it outright, they'll lose some number of them, or at least they'll lose a reliable stream of contributions, if they think they've "won" and can move on to other issues.

the strategy of leaving roe v. wade nominally in place, but making it hard for most women to get abortions works very well for the right-wing. especially because ultimately, they do want rich men to be able to arrange abortions if it suits them....

[no_hypocrisy]

2. The states won't be satisfied with restrictions on abortion to overturn Roe.

The strategy could be to allow those restrictions become law for that state and not appeal to the USSC.

My guess is that the states will now introduce total bans on abortion, knowing that opponents will decidedly appeal to the USSC rather than let the state's statute become piecemeal precedent.

[yallerdawg]

3. The 'strict constructionist' says...

if it is not specifically identified in the actual words of the Constitution, refer to the 10th Amendment - "reserved to the states." Exactly what the Dotard says (while promising "pro-life" judges).

This would lead to the undoing of any of our civil liberties from the Obama years, as we just saw at the end of Gorsuch's first year. That would be the Dotard's simple-minded obsession and goal.

More 'conservative' judges on the Supreme Court makes it certain.