Roe v. Wade is history

Post Reply New Topic

I suppose lawmakers can do whatever they choose.
I hope they wouldn't do that.
Anyone on the pill could take the whole package to stop implantation / cause a loss.
It's no different than handing girls / women a month worth of morning-after pills.

Condoms?
Religious groups already say it's a sin to masturbate even with a partner.
Oral sex and ejaculating outside the wife's body are a sin.

Who knows how crazy they'll get with this type of thinking.
Why would condoms be needed if all sexual activity was supposed to make babies?

But the government can only make certain laws based on the constitution though, and cannot make up any they want, at least not without taking over the government itself, or so I thought.

Oh okay I see that makes sense. Could the governor of a state though, block all condoms from entering?

Oh I see. Thank you very much for explaining it all. Is it just abortion that is a constitutional right compared to other medical procedures, or are other medical procedures and surgeries constitutional rights as well?

It is a situational thing possibly , but this is a medical procedure unique to women and control over their own bodies .
Even relating to reproductive rights .
This entire thing has become out of hand , it affects a woman’s psyche, mine especially, Am starting to feel like such a second class citizen. That I almost want to apologize for having a different opinion on this topic. And am well past
Being able to conceive

Thank you Isabella ……

Lolzz.. had not considered that … the company is appreciated…! , just sad that being disgusted is a thing to have to have in common . On account of some SCOTUS Justices poor thought processes.

Who is openly discussing it though, the supreme court?

Tucked inside the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling Friday that overturned the long-held constitutional protection for abortion was a concurring opinion from conservative Justice Clarence Thomas. In it, he pushed the court to revisit cases that have already been decided related to contraception and same-sex marriage.

Fueling already heightened anxieties from women and LGBTQ groups that the end of Roe could be the tip of the iceberg, Thomas wrote that “in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents.”

“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous,’ we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote.

Experts told The Texas Tribune that Thomas’ opinion signals an openness from the court to reconsidering other settled legal precedents related to rights the court has ruled are protected by the constitution.

Emily Berman, associate professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center, said Thomas’ opinion sends a strong message.

“He’s saying ‘This opinion doesn’t do it because people haven’t asked us to, but I think people should ask us and we should reconsider this entire area of law,’” Berman said.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote Friday’s majority opinion that struck down the landmark abortion case Roe v. Wade, tried to assuage fears that the court’s ruling could be used to do away with rights the court has previously said are protected by the constitution.

“We have stated unequivocally that ‘Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,’” Alito wrote.

But Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor expressed concern in their dissenting opinion, saying “no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work.” The right to an abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade in 1973 and Casey v. Planned Parenthood in 1992, did not stand alone, but were linked to decades of other “settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation.”

The right to an abortion, they said, arose from the right to access contraception, which was established in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965. The decisions in the abortion cases opened the door for the court to protect the right to same sex sexual intimacy and same sex marriage in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 and Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015.

“They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decision making over the most personal of life decisions,” Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote in their dissent.

“The majority (or to be more accurate, most of it) is eager to tell us today that nothing it does ‘cast[s] doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion,’” they added. “But how could that be? The lone rationale for what the majority does today is that the right to elect an abortion is not ‘deeply rooted in history’: Not until Roe, the majority argues, did people think abortion fell within the Constitution’s guarantee of liberty. The same could be said, though, of most of the rights the majority claims it is not tampering with.”

Berman said advocates are right to be concerned about the ruling’s impact.

“Despite the majority’s insistence that abortion is different, the legal argument that they make with respect to why Roe is wrong would apply equally to many other cases involving unenumerated rights such as gay marriage,” Berman said.

“There’s definite cause for concern that this idea will be extended to apply to other areas and I think gay marriage and contraception are the two most likely victims because those are the ones that don’t have a long history of having been acknowledged as a fundamental right,” she added.

That encouragement to challenge established law also has birth control advocates concerned.

With abortion soon outlawed in more than half the states, access to birth control could also be threatened, said Elizabeth Ruzzo, the founder of Adyn, a company that’s designed a test to prevent birth control side effects.

In May, Louisiana lawmakers considered a bill that would have classified abortion as homicide, which experts said could have criminalized the use of IUDs and emergency contraception. The bill ultimately failed, but Ruzzo fears that now, other states will try to bar contraception through strict abortion laws, even though contraceptives are also used to treat disorders in reproductive organs and manage premenstrual syndrome in teen girls.

“Unfortunately, birth control is at the forefront right now,” Ruzzo said. “[The ruling] really just has a painful amount of rippling implications for progress that we’ve made toward these really basic freedoms that people have come to expect in their daily lives.”

Victoria Kirby York, deputy executive director at the National Black Justice Coalition, which advocates for LGBTQ civil rights, said the court’s ruling could also open the door to rolling back rights like interracial marriage, marriage equality and other civil rights.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says (or ever said) "You have the right to an abortion".
It's not that specific.
It doesn't mention medical procedures at all.

The Constitution gives people equal human rights.
It says everyone is allowed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It says everyone is entitled to personal privacy.

Anyone could decide to sue SCOTUS if they lose those rights.

"Jane Roe" felt women were treated differently than men.
She didn't have the right to personal privacy, walking around pregnant.
She didn't have the right to personal liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
She couldn't afford another child.
She thought she (and all women) should be able to decide the course of their lives.

She won.
Unfortunately she won too late.

When someone has won a big case like that it becomes "Case Law".
That means future women could go to SCOTUS and ask for the same decision.
They could say "You allowed it for Jane Roe, so you have to allow it for me".

All supreme court decisions become "Case Law".

Now there is case law saying RvW cases should be decided by individual states.
Someone will likely challenge that it violates their constitutional rights.
They can still claim that Jane Roe got rights they didn't get.