• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

Kansas's rate has more than doubled since the Texas thing, and is expected to triple with the oklahoma decision. The the Kansas legislature will amend the State Constitution to allow banning them and folks will have to go even further.

That's pretty amazing.
 
I just heard of this Politico news. Wow!!!
It's a draft opinion, but wow, and yes, a lot to digest.
Time for me to read what's out so far.
 
What steps would need to be put in place to get a national ban on abortion?
I assume you the pass a law going either way, legal in all fifty states or illegal in all fifty states.
 
I’m a little bit surprised that this came out before the midterms, but only a little bit. Ever since Trump won in 2016, this was essentially a fait accompli. The effort to ban abortion nationwide is of course next.

“The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wadedecision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”


The red states will run rampant with restricting the providing of the procedure.

But if they try to criminalize having an abortion, then it's going to end up back in the federal court system again.

There's no way to enforce that without violating many of women's Const rights which the govt is obligated to protect.

What a prehistorically ignorant waste of time and for the women who can afford it least...a heavier burden. And a shitload more of unwanted, unaffordable kids.
 
You do. You just don’t have a right to harm others while exercising it.
You don’t have a right to privacy and you don’t have a bodily autonomy

We are all subjects to the state and THAT is your opinion.
 
The red states will run rampant with restricting the providing of the procedure.

But if they try to criminalize having an abortion, then it's going to end up back in the federal court system again.

There's no way to enforce that without violating many of women's Const rights which the govt is obligated to protect.

What a prehistorically ignorant waste of time and for the women who can afford it least...a heavier burden. And a shitload more of unwanted, unaffordable kids.
Well, in case you haven’t figured it out, constitutional rights are what the courts say they are. And…well…the SC is saying that women’s constitutional rights aren’t…constitutional.
 
Last edited:
You don’t have a right to privacy and you don’t have a bodily autonomy

We are all subjects to the state and THAT is your opinion.

Yes you have both. Re: bodily autonomy, see: Shimp vs McFall.

Harvard Law Review also discussed how it could be applied to abortion.

Six years after Roe v. Wade (1973), the landmark Supreme Court case that upheld a woman’s right to abortion based on her inherent right to privacy, the Common Pleas Court of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, ruled in favor of the “sanctity of the individual” to uphold women’s right to choice. The case, McFall v. Shimp (1978), ruled that a person could not be legally compelled to participate in medical treatment to save another person's life. The holding of McFall v. Shimp extends beyond this narrow circumstance; Judge John P. Flaherty applied the ruling to the moral obligations of people and other living things, citing the duty of the court to protect the individual from being invaded and hurt by others. [1] McFall v. Shimp employs the physical body's rights and duties, consistent with the discussion of reproductive rights during pregnancy—given the ongoing discourse on the legality of abortion, a critical examination of bodily integrity is necessary to distinguish moral conflicts from legal obligations. McFall v. Shimp set a legal precedent that an individual is not under compulsion to aid another person at their mental or physical expense, upholding the right to bodily autonomy found at the center of the debate on the legality of abortion.

Shimp vs McFall involved 2 persons, both of whom have rights. The unborn are not persons and have no rights recognized. So how will they justify violating a woman's rights? Just one of many questions that SCOTUS dodged all those years ago and it's coming back to bite us in the ass.
 
Last edited:
Something smells a little fishy with this story...

POLITICO received a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the court’s proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document. The draft opinion runs 98 pages, including a 31-page appendix of historical state abortion laws. The document is replete with citations to previous court decisions, books and other authorities, and includes 118 footnotes. The appearances and timing of this draft are consistent with court practice.

The disclosure of Alito’s draft majority opinion – a rare breach of Supreme Court secrecy and tradition around its deliberations – comes as all sides in the abortion debate are girding for the ruling. Speculation about the looming decision has been intense since the December oral arguments indicated a majority was inclined to support the Mississippi law.
 
I’m a little bit surprised that this came out before the midterms, but only a little bit. Ever since Trump won in 2016, this was essentially a fait accompli. The effort to ban abortion nationwide is of course next.

“The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wadedecision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

I think I'll wait until this "1st draft" is discussed, argued, and finalized.
 
Alito says Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.
Supposedly, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett agree. We'll see if this draft holds up through the expected June/July "decision" or not.
This is labeled as first draft of majority opinion.
 
Yes, because there are no pro life women.
Hell, I know pro-life women who who told me they would sell their own children into slavery to get rid of abortion: think about that
 
Well, in case you haven’t figured it out, constitutional rights are what the courts say they are. And…well…the SC is saying that women’s constitutional right aren’t…constitutional.

No it's not. But it will have to wait until a specific case violating women's Const rights come their way re: abortion before it can do it.
 
Back
Top Bottom