Republicans Want to Overturn Roe v. Wade, and They May Soon Be Able To
Growing up during the 1980s and 1990s, my second-wave feminist mother, writer Erica Jong, was obsessed with Roe v. Wade. Born in 1942, she came of age in a world without safe legal abortion. She knew what was at stake with the 1973 ruling that protected a womans right to choose without excessive government restriction. Roe v. Wade was a huge victory for my mothers generation. They could point to the Supreme Court decision as something tangible they did; their blood and sweat had changed the calculus of womens lives. No more women will die of back-alley abortions, my mother would say. No more wire hangers.
When Trump came down that gold escalator on June 16, 2015, to announce his presidential run, there was speculation that a thrice-married adulterer might even be pro-choice. But that was before he said, There has to be some form of punishment for abortion. Trump even said that he would install two Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, telling the polymaths at Fox & Friends, Its certainly possible. And maybe they do it in a different way. Maybe theyd give it back to the states. You just dont know whats going to happen.
The irony is, Roe v. Wade is popular. A NPR/PBS poll released in 2019 showed that 77% of Americans believed that the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade. And making abortion illegal doesnt actually prevent it. As Zara Ahmed writes, Abortion rates are actually four times higher in low-income countries where abortion is prohibited than in high-income countries where it is broadly legal.
This week, the dynamic in this long debate took on new dimensions when the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could and likely will result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The case, Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, is a chance for the Supreme Court to rule on the Mississippi law that forbids abortions after 15 weeks. The law was largely created in order to be kicked up to the Supreme Court and give conservatives the opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade. Previously, it had ruled that bans on abortion before viabilityabout 24 weekswere unconstitutional. A decision here would open the door to other conservative states being able to ban abortion.
https://www.vogue.com/article/abortion-supreme-court
CrispyQ
(36,509 posts)I wish the pro-choice groups would add this argument to their toolbox.
2010
Forced Labor, Revisited: The Thirteenth Amendment and Abortion
Andrew Koppelman
Northwestern University School of Law, akoppelman@law.northwestern.edu
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1031&context=facultyworkingpapers
snip...
I. The basic argument The Thirteenth Amendment reads as follows:
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
My claim is that the amendment is violated by laws that prohibit abortion. When women are compelled to carry and bear children, they are subjected to "involuntary servitude" in violation of the amendment. Abortion prohibitions violate the Amendment's guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates "that control by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude."6
Such laws violate the amendment's guarantee of equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into a servant caste, a group which, by virtue of a status of birth, is held subject to a special duty to serve others and not themselves.
~more at link
Parents can't be compelled to donate their organs to their child, even to save the child's life. Why does a fetus have more claim on a woman's body than her child who has been born?
THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION A WOMAN CAN MAKE ISN'T YOURS.
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)that will convince anti abortion folks, or get the folks who don't care to care.
we simply need to do better at caring about elections all of the time, at every level.
This was always a possible result, but we had too many say they weren't voting for Clinton just because of the courts because she wasn't progressive enough.
jimfields33
(15,952 posts)Direction. I think one will be taken seriously but not Mississippi with one abortion clinic in the state. Obviously I could be wrong. I just have a bunch Roberts Gorsuch and beer drinker (I seriously cant remember his name) wont do it yet.
ProudMNDemocrat
(16,789 posts)"If you are pre-born , we love you.
But if you are Pre-K, poor, need food, housing, and an education, you're FUCKED "
Sums up the Conservatives quite well.
hurple
(1,306 posts)Because a huge swath of their base are single-issue voters, and that issue is banning abortions.
If they actually do it, those single-issue voters have no more reason to vote for them.
Karma13612
(4,554 posts)Sharia-theocratic GQP anti-women, anti-choice facists better be careful what they wish for.
They have the SCOTUS they wished for and worked for, for so long. They got their criminal orange nut-job for a full term to set things just so.
If the SCOTUS does overturn Roe v. Wade and they effectually take away the GQPs campaign issue, then so be it for them. Well see. THEY CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
BUT: just to be clear:
The thought of going back to pre-RVW scares the living bjezus out of me. I was protected for nearly the whole of its existence. Now that my bun-warmer is closed, I can stop worry for myself. But I still lose sleep over the millions of gals whose lives will change as we march ever closer to Gilead.
Vote!!
hurple
(1,306 posts)Agree with every word you said, even though I personally never had a "bun warmer".
If they overturn Roe vs Wade, it will energize the left the same way it has been energizing the right... No, on second thought, I think it will energize the left even more, because it will prove one and for all, forever, that the right WILL take away rights and that they WILL legislate morality just like we have always claimed they would only to be called paranoid chicken-littles.
Karma13612
(4,554 posts)Well said!
LiberatedUSA
(1,666 posts)However, I doubt MOST gun control, the real society changing bills, wont pass this court. I dont see this court allowing an assault weapon ban, ESPECIALLY if it doesnt include a clause that people can keep what they already bought and arent forced to sell back the the government (never understood that wording, because gun stores are not owned by the government).
I realize they just recently turned away the ban on bump stocks, but that is different. Most gunners dont care about them and that allowed the justices to pretend to be bipartisan in turning the case away. They will stop a semi-auto ban in its tracks either 5-4 or 6-3.
hurple
(1,306 posts)Not to the true wackadoo evangelical base.
LetMyPeopleVote
(145,554 posts)Control of the SCOTUS and the future of Roe was on the ballot in 2016 but these two idiots wanted to help elect the former guy