SCOTUS Roe Versus Wade

[brettdale]

Twitter is going off, saying tonight the SCOTUS could over turn Roe Versus Wade????

Is this true???

Are they voting on it tonight???

When will the decision come in?

[JohnSJ]

1. The thinking is if they don't rule, Texas law takes effect for Texas

[Stuart G]

5. If Texas law takes effect for Texas...the rest of the country is OK..correct?

[JohnSJ]

6. As I understand it it would revert to individual states

[FBaggins]

26. That's what would happen if Roe is actually overturned

This comes nowhere close to that.

No other state is impacted and even Texas does not know that the law will be upheld.

No court has ruled on the law itself. This entire fight is over whether the law was drawn in such a way that it couldn't be challenged prior to coming into effect. Now that it HAS taken effect, entirely new lawsuits can begin shortly (as soon as someone tries to enforce it).

My guess is that (assuming SCOTUS doesn't act on it soon) the law will be put on hold in a couple of months and it will take a couple of years before final resolution.

[Hekate]

16. If the law reverts to the 50 states, each one will be different. In many cases, old laws were...

… left on the books and not repealed when Roe vs Wade was enacted. With Roe gone, who knows how many states will simply dust those off. Circa 1950.

[BootinUp]

2. 10 minutes i think

[proud patriot]

3. 8 minutes now

and millions of American women will lose their privacy and bocome second class citizens

[proud patriot]

4. link

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/31/texas-abortion-law-supreme-court-roe-v-wade.html

[walkingman]

7. Texas is such an embarrassment to our nation.

[electric_blue68]

20. RW 🤬 Texans, that is. I Know Good 💖 Liberal Texans.

[deizo]

8. This might be good thing in log run politically if it does get over turned!

Nothing will fire up the base more than if roe getting overturned and it will likely it give the Dems the juice they need to expand the court! Many people are complacent about their rights if they see they are really at risk they might get motivated

[JohnSJ]

9. Will it? It didn't happen in 2016 when it counted

[deizo]

10. I agree!! That was all hypothetical back then this real and when actually effects people thats when

people act I wish it wasn't that way but it is.

[JohnSJ]

12. Hopefully they will act

[Hekate]

15. Sorry to be harsh, but that is BS. I fought with people over the years who couldn't see the point...

…of voting for the Democratic candidate for President if that person did not meet their every tiny specification.

I know people who therefore voted for Ralph Nader rather than Al Gore. Bush won by a hair.
I know people who thought John Kerry wasn’t good enough. Bush got re-elected.
I know people who refused to vote for Obama because he was not Hillary (we got lucky that time)
I know people who voted for Jill Stein because Hillary had emails and a cackly laugh. Trump lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College.

ALL of these people I argued with were here at DU at one time or another, and all of them should have known better. I argued with every one of them that the future of the SCOTUS was at stake — and it made no difference to them.

People all over this country are going to be seriously hurt and some of them will die. The Texas law puts the Taliban to shame. The Texas law is worse than anything that was in place when I was a girl, long before Roe.

[deizo]

19. Because all that arguing was in the abstract.

obamcare was under water for years but once people had it and they saw it could be taken away people fought for it!

[Hekate]

22. There was absolutely nothing abstract about it. You had to have parked your brain on Mars...

… not to have seen the danger.

The anti-abortion movement is full of fanatics who support a network of people who have murdered doctors in their homes and churches, who have burned and blown up clinics, who have doxxed clinic workers and have stalked their children. They long ago decided that praying outside clinics simply was not enough.

Just how did people “fight for Obamacare when they saw it could be taken away”? Was it like Trump listened to them? Was it like the Supreme Court listened to them? Was it like Republicans in the House and Senate listened to them?

No, actually not. Everything hangs by a thread.

On what do you base your arguments and your enthusiasm?

[deizo]

23. I get it! I am talking about how general public sees it. I think your the one who parked your brain!

[treestar]

40. I see what you mean

DUers are always: "Why aren't people in the streets?" over some issue. When it takes a lot more to have that happen.

The Sarandon crowd for sure thought having Trump in the Oval Office was enough. No real revolution over that, either. It's got to be a lot worse than they think for "the revolution" to happen.

[deizo]

46. thanks

The news have already said this could be a game changer for midterms just like I have been saying!

[MrsCoffee]

42. Fuck that.

Just let it happen he says.... It might be good in the long run....

Forget all the women who will suffer in the meantime... It might be good to have the suffering he says....

Forget all the back alley deaths that will occur in the meantime... It might be good to have the deaths he says...

Do you get it yet?

FFS.

[deizo]

44. THAT'S NOT CALLED FOR!

If you can't handle losing argument than just don't reply!

I didn't make the law or put those those assholes on the supreme court to many people took their rights for granted these are consequences of inaction! I am now done conversing with you.

[MrsCoffee]

45. It's your post that wasn't called for.

Apparently you just don't or willfully won't get it.

I have lost no arguments. And I am fine with not conversing with you.

Nothing about this decision is a good thing. Now or in the long run.

End of.

[treestar]

47. I don't think that was meant

but the law passed, and if the SCOTUS upholds it, we can't do anything about it, but the effects may cause Texans to have second thoughts, and want to repeal it.

And an example to the other red states that will do the same thing.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

24. This is such a garbage take.

[deizo]

25. If you going to say that then back it up!

[WhiskeyGrinder]

30. Voting harder goes only so far. If elected Dems don't do anything about the filibuster, I expect

them to do nothing about this action.

[deizo]

34. Thats because of dems like manchin and sinema but are many people fighting

It's like FDR said make me do it! I am not saying it will be easy but the only other choice we have is give up!

[Mad_Machine76]

31. It is more likely

that Roe will continue to be upheld- in name only- but people's ability to obtain abortion-related services in some areas (i.e. the south) will be severely curtailed if not impossible.

[MrsCoffee]

41. FUCK. THAT. NOISE.

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

End of.

[bobnicewander]

11. An alarming new Supreme Court case could unravel Roe v. Wade as soon as Tuesday night

By Ian Millhiser Aug 31, 2021, 3:00pm EDT

https://www.vox.com/2021/8/31/22650303/supreme-court-abortion-texas-sb8-jackson-roe-wade-greg-abbott

"In May, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed a state law that effectively bans abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy — sooner than many people learn they are pregnant. This law violates the ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which protects “the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the state.” But it will nonetheless take effect on Wednesday unless a court blocks it."

It might have taken effect at midnight August 31 - September 1 if U.S. Supreme Court does not grant an injunction to block it.

[FBaggins]

28. That was nonsense

Nothing here unraveled Roe

[WhiskeyGrinder]

29. SB8 certainly guts it by instituting a pre-viability ban.

[FBaggins]

32. SB8 hasn't been ruled on by any court

It doesn't "gut" anything until/unless that occurs.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

33. If you don't think it's a signal from the SCOTUS that it didn't take up this law before it went into

effect when it had the chance to do so, I don't know what to tell you, I guess.

[FBaggins]

35. It is no such signal

The law was written to avoid court review until after it takes effect, wasn't challenged until a bit over a month ago, and was only brought to the court a couple of days ago (with the response filing coming less than a day before the law was active).

If the court was sending such a signal, there would have been three dissenters calling out the majority for that signal.

A legitimate argument can be made that the court was given no opportunity to "take up this law before it went into effect". All they had was a request to force a lower court to force an even lower court to issue a stay prior to even holding a hearing on the initial request for that stay. And they haven't even acted on that request yet.

[ShazzieB]

38. What does "written to avoid court review" mean?

The law was written to avoid court review until after it takes effect, wasn't challenged until a bit over a month ago, and was only brought to the court a couple of days ago (with the response filing coming less than a day before the law was active).

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what this means. (See bolded portion, above.)

How do you write a law to avoid court review until after it takes effect? Is this something to do with the content of the law, timing, or what?

Please, somebody, explain this to me like I'm 6 years old, because this statement is baffling to me.

[FBaggins]

39. Courts don't repeal laws when they are unconstitutional

What they do is tell government officials that they cannot enforce that law. (That's why people often talk about abortion reverting to state-by-state rules if Roe is overturned. Most states have repealed their pre-Roe abortion laws, but some are still on the books).

So, in virtually every case, you try to block a law before it is implemented by suing the government officials who will enforce it and have the court tell them that they can't. Perhaps that's in the person of the governor or attorney general.

But this law specifically forbids any government official from enforcing the law. It's to be enforced exclusively by private citizens through civil actions that the law makes possible. That makes it very hard to even begin a suit. The one in question here names people as defendants who just have to say "you can't tell us not to enforce this law because we already play no role in enforcing it"

It's clever. I don't see how it can stand long-term (even if we ignore Roe), but it's awfully hard to block it before someone tries to enforce it.

[ShazzieB]

43. Thanks for this explanation!

Yeesh, how devious.

I would never have figured that out in a million years. I actually had to read it more than once before I understood it, and I'm still not sure if completely understand it. I think I need to read the actual text of the law. *goes off to do some research*

[haele]

36. No, but the law allows religious groups and harrassers the ability to sue "for damages"

It puts a $10k civil suit bounty on OB/GYNs, Women's health clinics, or anyone who "facilitates" an abortion after 6 weeks of pregnancy.
So if a woman goes to a clinic because she's having a miscarriage at 6 months along, and loses the baby, requiring a D&C to avoid septic shock or to allow her to have future children, the self-righteous hater next door or a disapproving co-worker can decide to sue the clinic and any family member or friend that took her to the clinic for facilitating the abortion.

And possibly get $10k if that personal citizen gets before an equally bigoted, conservative civil judge and jury.

Win/win for the haters. The woman gets her reputation smeared in public for a legit medical procedure to potentially save her life or fertility; she and her facilitators under this law are out > $10k because they also have to pay both their lawyers and the plaintiff's lawyers if they lose instead of just their lawyers; and the clinic, doctors, and nurses get sued, potentially closing down the only clinic within 200 miles.

So, what woman or her sympathetic friend or family member are going to be willing to go through all that if they have a need to go through a legal abortion procedure?
Especially knowing how many ambulance chasers and grifters are out there looking for an easy $10k per suit in a red county?
Only a rich man's wife, daughter, or mistress. Not the average woman.

This is an economic assault of women's health, causing defacto overturning of Roe in Texas for anyone who can't afford a lawyer or the loss of $10kto $20k just because of a hater's "religious" views.

Haele

[FBaggins]

37. And as soon as one of them tries it... more effective lawsuits will appear

I have no idea how this clever new strategy will stand up in court over time, but it hasn't really been challenged yet... let alone been ultimately successful.

[SoCalDavidS]

13. Law Takes Effect In 27 Minutes nt

[msongs]

14. and every republican state will implement this as well nt

[bottomofthehill]

17. Don't worry, Susan Sarandon said there is no difference

So none of this is actually happening.

[bottomofthehill]

18. There is no difference between Hillary and Trump

They would have appointed the same justices.

[electric_blue68]

21. 😥 and 🤬🤬🤬

[spanone]

27. by not ruling they have essentially given the go ahead

Welcome to 1950