Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Booray said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

"The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives."

---

I read that as saying the Constitution also empowers states to allow abortions. Is the pro-life world willing to live with half the US having access to abortions?

Or is the whole "let the states decide it" theory going to get thrown out next?

---

I've seriously struggled with that question for a while, and not just this morning. Would like to discuss it when I have more time.

---

It was just an interesting hypothetical until this morning.

---

Indeed, but what I have to say when I put my thoughts together will be the same as I would have said yesterday.

---

I trust that is true for you. For many, not so much.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Roberts criticizes fellow conservatives for overturning Roe

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. criticized his fellow conservatives for overruling Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, saying it was not necessary to overturn that precedent in order to uphold Mississippi's law forbidding most abortions after 15 weeks.
"Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis," he wrote. "The Court's opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us."

---

The Supreme law of the land it the U.S. Constitution.

It says nothing about abortion one way or the other.

Roberts is wrong....Roe was always wrongly decided and terrible law.

It took a solemn right of the States from them.

Abortion is purely a State matter until such time as a Constitutional amendment is passed that deals with the issue (for or against).

---

Roberts voted with the 6-3 majority

---

Wrong in that Roberts did not think the Court should have overturned the precedent that was Roe.

It had to be overturned...there was no other way.

It was always at odds with the Constitution.

---

I agree

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Roberts criticizes fellow conservatives for overturning Roe

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. criticized his fellow conservatives for overruling Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, saying it was not necessary to overturn that precedent in order to uphold Mississippi's law forbidding most abortions after 15 weeks.
"Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis," he wrote. "The Court's opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us."

---

The Supreme law of the land it the U.S. Constitution.

It says nothing about abortion one way or the other.

Roberts is wrong....Roe was always wrongly decided and terrible law.

It took a solemn right of the States from them.

Abortion is purely a State matter until such time as a Constitutional amendment is passed that deals with the issue (for or against).

---

Roberts voted with the 6-3 majority

---

To uphold the law. Not to overrule abortion.

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Roberts criticizes fellow conservatives for overturning Roe

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. criticized his fellow conservatives for overruling Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, saying it was not necessary to overturn that precedent in order to uphold Mississippi's law forbidding most abortions after 15 weeks.
"Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis," he wrote. "The Court's opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us."

---

The Supreme law of the land it the U.S. Constitution.

It says nothing about abortion one way or the other.

Roberts is wrong....Roe was always wrongly decided and terrible law.

It took a solemn right of the States from them.

Abortion is purely a State matter until such time as a Constitutional amendment is passed that deals with the issue (for or against).

---

Roberts voted with the 6-3 majority

---

To uphold the law. Not to overrule abortion.

---

The Court voted to overrule Roe v Wade, not to uphold it.

Did SCOTUS blog get it wrong?

Art Vandelay said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Cobretti said:

---

BREAKING: Congresswoman @AOC has arrived in front of the Supreme Court and is chanting that the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade is “illegitimate” and calls for people to get “into the streets” | @TPUSA pic.twitter.com/jNkCYDrLtz

— Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) June 24, 2022

---

And that, my friends, is a conspiracy to incite an insurrection.

---

Seems rather insurrectiony to me

---

Seems free speechy to me. In the streets is ok.

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

Last time I checked a Supreme Court Justice had to "get elected" by members of Senate. Senators that were in turn, elected to represent the citizens of each state.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

With options like condoms, birth control and plan b…it's insane that women still have unwanted pregnancies.

It's always been hypocritical of the left to demand abortion, but have absolutely no concern over the huge lack of personal responsibility and prevention awareness of pregnancy.

---

So Planned Parenthood is funded by the Right? Weird flex...

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

I read that as saying the Constitution also empowers states to allow abortions. Is the pro-life world willing to live with half the US having access to abortions? Loaded question. I would like the world to respect the dignity of life and have the desire the ban abortion.

The Constitution is not empowering them to allow abortions. To me the decision simply states that Federal gov't isn't going to take the right away from the states to make that decision.

Or is the whole "let the states decide it" theory going to get thrown out next?

---

No. The states get to decide. Now circle back to the bolded statement in my post.

---

I would like the world to respect the dignity of life outside of a woman's body.

---

Life like Ashli Babbitt?

JL said:

---

"The nature of the Court's error. Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided."

Alito out here dunkin on em.

---

Ruth Bader Ginsburg had reservations about Roe vs. Wade from the get go because it used the 14th Amendment "Due Process" clause as justification of the decision.

She felt it would have made more sense under the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th amendment, to be justified.

Don't be surprised that this comes up again and goes before the Supreme Court under the "Equal Protection" clause of the 14th Amendment as justification.


I'm against Abortion in at least 98% of the cases, I am not in favor of a blanket abortion act, as a right for any reason and at any time, right up to birth, but that said this is not over and expect a challenge to go before the Supreme Court again within a fairly short period of time.

Rawhide said:

---

quash said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Booray said:

---

I read that as saying the Constitution also empowers states to allow abortions. Is the pro-life world willing to live with half the US having access to abortions? Loaded question. I would like the world to respect the dignity of life and have the desire the ban abortion.

The Constitution is not empowering them to allow abortions. To me the decision simply states that Federal gov't isn't going to take the right away from the states to make that decision.

Or is the whole "let the states decide it" theory going to get thrown out next?

---

No. The states get to decide. Now circle back to the bolded statement in my post.

---

I would like the world to respect the dignity of life outside of a woman's body.

---

Life like Ashli Babbitt?

---

I wish Ashli Babbitt had made better choices.

Maybe we can do something to reduce the maternal mortality rate in this country, it's damn near third world.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

303Bear said:

---

BaylorJacket said:

---

It is a sad day - an unelected court of judges overturns a policy supported by nearly 70% of Americans.

---

SCOTUS is not meant to uphold majority sentiment. If abortion is so popular, there should be no risk at all as every state will quickly codify it.

If anything, this perfectly illustrates the danger of courts creating positive rights rather than protecting people by protecting them from government overreach through negative rights.

Due to the supremacy clause, congress could pass federal laws codifying all of the supposedly "threatened" rights and no state could countermand that. That no congress in 50 years bothered to do so with abortion is interesting, and ultimately why this ruling even matters at all.

---

I completely agree with you, Congress had decades to do something.

Regardless of the politics behind these decisions, I am just disheartened for especially women of poverty in red states

---

With options like condoms, birth control and plan b…it's insane that women still have unwanted pregnancies.

It's always been hypocritical of the left to demand abortion, but have absolutely no concern over the huge lack of personal responsibility and prevention awareness of pregnancy.

---

Generally agree with you on unwanted pregnancies with some exceptions.

Rape / sexual assault victims are sympathetic, and while I can understand the desire, I cannot get to a place where I believe one horrible crime justifies the killing of the innocent. Would much rather see effort and resources go into after care (both physical and mental) for victims and their families, as well as better policing practices to investigate and prosecute these crimes.

Medically necessary abortions are 100% real, though they are blessedly rare. Things like ectopic pregnancies will kill the mother 100% of the time, and they cannot be maintained long enough to ever hope to produce a viable living child. Certain other conditions such as severe hypertension / diabetes (which can be brought on or exacerbated by a pregnancy) or trauma situations justify, to me, prioritizing a mother's life over that of the child.

That said, the vast, vast majority of abortions are not performed for such reasons or in such circumstances.

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Roberts criticizes fellow conservatives for overturning Roe

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. criticized his fellow conservatives for overruling Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, saying it was not necessary to overturn that precedent in order to uphold Mississippi's law forbidding most abortions after 15 weeks.
"Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis," he wrote. "The Court's opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us."

---

The Supreme law of the land it the U.S. Constitution.

It says nothing about abortion one way or the other.

Roberts is wrong....Roe was always wrongly decided and terrible law.

It took a solemn right of the States from them.

Abortion is purely a State matter until such time as a Constitutional amendment is passed that deals with the issue (for or against).

---

Roberts voted with the 6-3 majority

---

To uphold the law. Not to overrule abortion.

---

The Court voted to overrule Roe v Wade, not to uphold it.

Did SCOTUS blog get it wrong?

---

You're not understanding. The court rules 6 to 3 to uphold the Mississippi law. Roberts didn't join with the majority in overturning Roe.

"let justice roll on like a river..."