Looking at the leaked draft: one comment so far

[snot]

I'm in the process of reading/analyzing the draft opinion and wanted to share one comment so far, just in case it might be useful to anyone reading DU who has the opportunity to contribute to the discussion in a more public way.

The draft argues that in order to recognize a right to abortion under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, abortion rights proponents would have to show that such a right was “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition”; and the draft spends a great deal of time and space showing that other such rights that have been recognized by the Court have been supported by histories going back to the Magna Carta or at least to the time that the 14th Amendment was enacted, whereas in contrast, abortion has historically mostly been criminalized.

My response to this argument is that as I understand, the only Constitutional support for affording women the vote or any other Constitutional rights didn’t come along until considerably after the 14th Amendment, in 1919 when the 19th Amendment was enacted. Until relatively recently, women were considered property; and well within my lifetime, it was still impossible for a woman even to obtain credit in her own name.

If you concede that women should have almost any rights at all, therefore, requiring that they be shown to stem from centuries-long roots has all the logic of the Red Queen’s commands in "Alice in Wonderland."

[Dawson Leery]

1. Cons pick and chose what rules they want so they fit their purpose.

Sammy the Bull is throwing out most of the Constitution to fit his dogma.

[brush]

10. Alito's a 17th century man, a man of his time, a time...

when women were property and/or witches to be burned at the stake when appropriate.

Tell me he's kidding us with this 17th century bullshit. Somebody tell me quick that this can't possibly be true here in the 21st century—that a SCOTUS justice, someone purported to be a serious thinker worthy of sitting on the highest court in the land, is citing a witchcraft-believing misogynist from the 1600s.

It can't possibly be true.

I repeat, he cites a 17th century misogynist, a 17th century misogynist who believed in witches.

He and his clerk, or whoever wrote that claptrap of the highest order and thought it was an appropriate reference to back up a claim that women should be denied autonomy over their own bodies, should be laughed and ridiculed out of the Supreme Court building and never be allowed to return (and preferably tarred and feathered if we were somehow transported back to the 17th century, as they apparently were).

I mean he cited a witchcraft believer. God! What kind of antiquated creatures have been put on the Supreme Court?

[Sanity Claws]

2. I don't understand why rights under the 14th A have to be entrenched for centuries

The 14th Amendment was part of three post-civil war amendments that fundamentally changed the U.S. Constitution and were aimed at killing states' rights arguments that had perpetuated slavery. Why then this backward looking and thinking to hundreds of years that predate the amendments to determine their meaning?

[dchill]

3. The Right Wing of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial...

...has muscled all law, state and federal, out of their way. The Constitution is, after all, just goddamn piece of paper.

[Mr.Bill]

4. My wife likes to point out something to people

that it turns out few have contemplated (including me) before she says it. Black men were allowed to vote before white women, and a black man was president and no woman has.

This makes it a huge deal that Kamala Harris is vice president. There is so much hope for her to be president one day.

[onecaliberal]

5. They WANT to go back to before the 14th amendment where women are concerned.

“My response to this argument is that as I understand, the only Constitutional support for affording women the vote or any other Constitutional rights didn’t come along until considerably after the 14th Amendment, in 1919 when the 19th Amendment was enacted. Until relatively recently, women were considered property; and well within my lifetime, it was still impossible for a woman even to obtain credit in her own name.”

It’s a feature, not a bug.

[Solly Mack]

6. Women were held down and held back because of men and their laws and "traditions"

for generations.

So, yeah, the history of patriarchy/misogyny would reflect that. And America is very much part of that history.

And now this man wants to claim because of the laws men made and the traditions men held sway over and the patriarchal system of society men set up, that women have no historical and traditional claim to full autonomy and the full range of health care.

Men created those conditions - specifically, white men.

Sounds like the wife beater explaining to his spouse that it was her fault he had to beat her.

[Bluesaph]

7. It's shocking that five Supreme Court justices

Have the reasoning of snails! It’s actually frightening!!

In this opinion it is actually argued that our rights in this country are only there inasmuch as they have been there historically. Like WOW! They say the quiet part out loud. They don’t want to take us back to the 50’s at all! They want to take us back to the dark ages!

By their reasoning, all rights should go back to the pilgrims and even further back! Will they next require women to wear scarlet letters?

Excuse me while I puke!

[jmbar2]

8. Apparently, abortion was common in colonial America

Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions. They used a variety of methods including the use of black root and cedar root as abortifacient agents. During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10297561/

[uponit7771]

9. K&R, Alito's try's to be slick by claiming his opinion isn't an women's issue per se cause women can

... choose not to get pregnant ignoring rape and incest all together.

Alito's arguments follow same outline as Taney's Dred Scott leaning way more on a "history and tradition" vs written constitutional law and ignoring the 9th amendment altogether.