Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

These recent actions by the Supreme Court will soon lead to some of the most decisive conditions this nation has seen in many years.
I am no lawyer, but I have always wondered how solid the law was on Roe v Wade. We'd have been much better off if abortion had been legalized by Congress or even better a constitutional amendment, harder to question that way.
 
I believe a woman should have the choice of whether or not to have an abortion. If the shoe was on the other foot and a man could get pregnant,I wonder what they would think about abortions.
This is a question that raises other questions. Supposedly, Justice Alito wrote the decision that was leaked to the world. I have wondered this question before. When a case comes before the court, do the Justices apply the Constitution to reach their ruling or do they apply their own personal opinion? How do we know? If all 9 Justices apply the Constitution to the question, why don’t all 9 Justices reach the same decision? Do they all interpret the Constitution or maybe amendments differently? Hmm…..
 

I am no lawyer, but I have always wondered how solid the law was on Roe v Wade. We'd have been much better off if abortion had been legalized by Congress or even better a constitutional amendment, harder to question that way.
Obama said he was going to codify abortion and DACCA, but never got to them.
 
Obama said he was going to codify abortion and DACCA, but never got to them.
Too bad on the abortion thing. Polls usually show majority support for choice, making it the law only makes sense.

I assume DACCA refers to the Dream Act thing, and not the old spelling for the capital of Bangladesh. I would prefer to see comprehensive immigration reform, not a piecemeal solution. However it seems we are getting neither.
 
Too bad on the abortion thing. Polls usually show majority support for choice, making it the law only makes sense.

I assume DACCA refers to the Dream Act thing, and not the old spelling for the capital of Bangladesh. I would prefer to see comprehensive immigration reform, not a piecemeal solution. However it seems we are getting neither.
Maybe it depends upon where you take the poll. Nationwide, you are correct. In Texas or Kentucky, not so much.
 
Obama said he was going to codify abortion and DACCA, but never got to them.
Maybe that's because the president doesn't have the ability to codify anything. That's the role of the legislative branch of government.

But even if they tried, Democrats only had a supermajority for a few months in 2009, which is what was necessary to overcome the filibuster. Even with that, a few anti-abortion Democrats probably wouldn't have supported it so it would have been a waste of time.
 
Please don't bring Texas into this if you don't live here. Not everyone here is Ted Cruz.
From Wiki...
Texas
Main article: Abortion in Texas
The Roe v. Wade case, tried in Texas, stands at the center of years of national debate about the issue of abortion.[69] Henry Wade was serving as District Attorney of Dallas County at the time.

On August 29, 2014, US District Judge Lee Yeakel struck down as unconstitutional two provisions of Texas' omnibus anti-abortion bill, House Bill 2 that was to come into effect on September 1. The regulation would have closed about a dozen abortion clinics, leaving only eight places in Texas to get a legal abortion, all located in major cities. Judge Lee Yeakel ruled that the state's regulation was unconstitutional and would have placed an undue burden on women, particularly on poor and rural women living in west Texas and the Rio Grande Valley.[70] The legal challenge to the law eventually reached the Supreme Court in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016) which ruled that the law was unconstitutional, its burden of requiring abortion doctors to have admission privileges at a local hospital within 30 miles of the center to interfere with a woman's right to an abortion from Roe v. Wade.

In May 2021, Texas lawmakers passed the Texas Heartbeat Act, banning abortions as soon cardiac activity can be detected, typically as early as six weeks into pregnancy and often before women know they are pregnant. In order to avoid traditional constitutional challenges based on Roe v. Wade, the law provides that any non-government employee or official, excepting sexual perpetrators who conceived the fetus, may sue anyone that performs or induces an abortion in violation of the statute, as well as anyone who "aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise." The lawsuit may be filed by people either with or without any vested interest. The law contains an exception for abortions performed to save the mother's life.[71] The law was challenged in courts, though had yet to have a full formal hearing as its September 1, 2021, enactment date came due. Plaintiffs sought an order from the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the law from coming into effect, but the Court issued a denial of the order late on September 1, 2021, allowing the law to remain in effect. While unsigned, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer wrote dissenting opinions joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor that they would have granted an injunction on the law until a proper judicial review.[72][73]

On September 9, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland, the United States Department of Justice sued the State of Texas over the Texas Act on the basis that "the law is invalid under the Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment, is preempted by federal law, and violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity".[74] Garland further noted that the United States government has “an obligation to ensure that no state can deprive individuals of their constitutional rights.”[75] The Complaint avers that Texas enacted the law "in open defiance of the Constitution".[76] The relief requested from the U.S. District Court in Austin, Texas includes a declaration that the Texas Act is unconstitutional, and an injunction against state actors as well as any and all private individuals who may bring a SB 8 action.[76][75] The suit was met with controversy, with critics citing concerns over the suit's politicized nature and the possible infringements on civilian rights.[77][78]

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, Texas banned abortions except when the mother's life is at risk.[16][48] Completed or attempted providing of abortion "will be charged with a first- or second-degree felony, and will be subject to a civil penalty of at least $100,000" for each abortion.[28] A first degree felony in Texas is punishable by 5 to 99 years in prison, while a second degree felony is punishable by 2 to 20 years in prison, with "fines of up to $10,000" being possible.[79][80]
 
People in Sydney gather in the cold rain to show solidarity with people protesting against SCOTUS ruling on abortion. More evidence that what happens in America does not go unnoticed elsewhere around the globe.

Due to the American media, many are confused what our Supreme Court really did, especially foreign countries.

What our Supreme Court did not do was "make a ruling on abortion"! What they did do was declare a prior ruling on abortion unconstitutional and therefore makes the question of abortions up to each of our 50 states and/or our Congress which can write a new law on abortions if they chose to. Our Constitution does not mention abortions or define any legal precedence that could be applied to abortions; thus, the original ruling is Non constitutional. Why other courts ignored this for so long, but this ruling seems to be correct based on reading our Constitution.
 
Due to the American media, many are confused what our Supreme Court really did, especially foreign countries.

What our Supreme Court did not do was "make a ruling on abortion"! What they did do was declare a prior ruling on abortion unconstitutional and therefore makes the question of abortions up to each of our 50 states and/or our Congress which can write a new law on abortions if they chose to. Our Constitution does not mention abortions or define any legal precedence that could be applied to abortions; thus, the original ruling is Non constitutional. Why other courts ignored this for so long, but this ruling seems to be correct based on reading our Constitution.
That's way wrong.

In 1973, the SCOTUS ruled that women have a Constitutional right to abortion. That ruling was based on an interpretation of the Constitutional right to privacy granted by the 14th Amendment.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy.
— Roe, 410 U.S. at 153.

What the latest ruling by SCOTUS does is rescind that right. They didn't rule that the previous ruling was "unconstitutional." They ruled that there is no right to privacy when it comes to abortion.
 
Last edited:
So where do you draw the line on the 14th? If abortion is included, how about prostitution? How about drug use? How about bigamy? How about etc, etc?

As has been said "The constitution says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say".
 
"

Bash asks GOP Gov. Kristi Noem if South Dakota would force a 10-year-old to have a baby​

State of the Union

Governor Kristi Noem (R-SD), discusses a report in the Indianapolis Star where an OBGYN said a 10-year-old girl was forced to leave Ohio to obtain an abortion. South Dakota has banned all abortions except when the mother's life is at risk. "
This makes me sick a 10 year old child forced to leave the state to get an abortion! A 10 year old probably would die giving birth to a baby. She is a baby herself!
 
So where do you draw the line on the 14th? If abortion is included, how about prostitution? How about drug use? How about bigamy? How about etc, etc?

As has been said "The constitution says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say".
It's kind of like the 2nd Amendment. Where do you draw the line? At AR-15s? At grenade launchers? At howitzers?
 


Back
Top