Featured Should the Supreme Court overturn abortion rights?

For popular or very good threads

AgnosticBoy

Open-minded Skeptic
Administrator
Agnostic
Oct 1, 2020
786
144
TheAgnosticForum.com
Worldview

Agnosticism

The media company Politico made public a draft opinion of SCOTUS on abortion.

Here's a brief summary taken from 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.

A George W. Bush appointee who joined the court in 2006, Alito argues that the 1973 abortion rights ruling was an ill-conceived and deeply flawed decision that invented a right mentioned nowhere in the Constitution and unwisely sought to wrench the contentious issue away from the political branches of government.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision....”
- Justice Samuel Alito in an initial draft majority opinion

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision....”

The overturning of Roe would almost immediately lead to stricter limits on abortion access in large swaths of the South and Midwest, with about half of the states set to immediately impose broad abortion bans. Any state could still legally allow the procedure.

For Debate:
1. Do you agree with some of the arguments above and that it should lead to abortion being a decision made by states as opposed to being made at a federal level?

2. What factors would you go by to make this decision?
 

2Dbunk

Recalcitrant, etc.
Apr 20, 2022
18
3
The Great Southwest - NM
www.putin-trumpdogshow.com
Worldview

I'm Atheist only to avo--

A George W. Bush appointee who joined the court in 2006, Alito argues that the 1973 abortion rights ruling was an ill-conceived and deeply flawed decision that invented a right mentioned nowhere in the Constitution and unwisely sought to wrench the contentious issue away from the political branches of government.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision....”
- Justice Samuel Alito in an initial draft majority opinion
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
No! The crux of the situation is privacy and equal rights, both mentioned in the Constitution. Alito's judgement is a very narrow one and smacks of the pulpit! Women must have the right of choice, just as every man has.
 
B

Bill

Guest
A case was made to me by a religious zealot that this matter should be left to individual States to make their own decisions which would be the law of that State, provided that they made the correct decision.
 

AgnosticBoy

Open-minded Skeptic
Administrator
Agnostic
Oct 1, 2020
786
144
TheAgnosticForum.com
Worldview

Agnosticism

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision....”
- Justice Samuel Alito in an initial draft majority opinion.
Source: Politico

Okay, I spent a day watching MSNBC yesterday. Admittedly not my most favorite media station but they some times cover information that FOx News won't cover.

Two good points I heard mentioned from their reporting:
1. Part of Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion says that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. Wouldn't this also be an argument to make interracial marriages, same-sex marriages, and a lot of other issues not Constitutional?

2. Also, reported that Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Gorsuch, during their confirmation hearings, stated that abortion was settled law. If it's settled law, why are they changing it as reflected in the leaked draft opinion..

"If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office," Collins, R-Maine, said in a statement Tuesday morning. "Obviously, we won't know each Justice's decision and reasoning until the Supreme Court officially announces its opinion in this case."
Source: ABC news

I'm looking forward to hear the justices response to this or look into the draft opinion to see how they covered that issue.
 

AgnosticBoy

Open-minded Skeptic
Administrator
Agnostic
Oct 1, 2020
786
144
TheAgnosticForum.com
Worldview

Agnosticism

1. Part of Justice Samuel Alito's draft opinion says that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. Wouldn't this also be an argument to make interracial marriages, same-sex marriages, and a lot of other issues not Constitutional?
Okay, did some research on this and here's one analysis I found so far...

An excellent read in The New Yorker by Jill Lepore:
This will be, in large part, because Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is surprised that there is so little written about abortion in a four-thousand-word document crafted by fifty-five men in 1787. As it happens, there is also nothing at all in that document, which sets out fundamental law, about pregnancy, uteruses, vaginas, fetuses, placentas, menstrual blood, breasts, or breast milk. There is nothing in that document about women at all. Most consequentially, there is nothing in that document—or in the circumstances under which it was written—that suggests its authors imagined women as part of the political community embraced by the phrase “We the People.” There were no women among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were no women among the hundreds of people who participated in ratifying conventions in the states. There were no women judges. There were no women legislators. At the time, women could neither hold office nor run for office, and, except in New Jersey, and then only fleetingly, women could not vote. Legally, most women did not exist as persons.
...
Alito’s opinion rests almost exclusively on a bizarre and impoverished historical analysis. “The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion, and therefore those who claim that it protects such a right must show that the right is somehow implicit in the constitutional text,” he argues, making this observation repeatedly. Roe, he writes, was “remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text” and suffers from one error above all: “it held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned.”

If a right isn’t mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, Alito argues, following a mode of reasoning known as the history test, then it can only become a right if it can be shown to be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

Referring to the advocates for Jackson Women’s Health Organization and to amicus briefs like one signed by the American Historical Association, Alito writes, “Not only are respondents and their amici unable to show that a constitutional right to abortion was established when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but they have found no support for the existence of an abortion right that predates the latter part of the 20th century—no state constitutional provision, no statute, no judicial decision, no learned treatise.”
...
As I have argued, the history test disadvantages people who were not enfranchised at the time the Constitution was written, or who have been poorly enfranchised since then. Especially important is the question of who was enfranchised at the time of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, in 1868, the nation’s second founding, since many arguments defending abortion rights (and many other rights, too) turn on the equal-protection and due-process clauses of that amendment.

Alito, shocked—shocked—to discover so little in the law books of the eighteen-sixties guaranteeing a right to abortion, has missed the point: hardly anything in the law books of the eighteen-sixties guaranteed women anything. Because, usually, they still weren’t persons. Nor, for that matter, were fetuses.

I don’t happen to think Roe was well argued. I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s early analysis—that grounding the right in equality rather than privacy might have been a sounder approach. I’m not even a hard-liner on the question of abortion; I find it morally thorny. But, when Samuel Alito says that people who believe abortion is a constitutional right “have no persuasive answer to this historical evidence,” he displays nothing so much as the limits of his own evidence. “The page of history teems with woman’s wrongs,” as the nineteenth-century abolitionist Sarah Grimké once put it. It does not teem with women’s rights. To use a history of discrimination to deny people their constitutional rights is a perversion of logic and a betrayal of justice. Would the Court decide civil-rights cases regarding race by looking exclusively to laws and statutes written before emancipation?

At the close of the opinion, Alito congratulates both himself and the Court that, with this ruling, they are enfranchising women. “Our decision . . . allows women on both sides of the abortion issue to seek to affect the legislative process by influencing public opinion, lobbying legislators, voting, and running for office,” he writes. “Women are not without electoral or political power.” True, women are no longer without electoral power. But they were without it for almost the entirety of the history on which Alito grounds his analysis of the Constitution and its provisions. You don’t need a leaked document to learn that.
 

AgnosticBoy

Open-minded Skeptic
Administrator
Agnostic
Oct 1, 2020
786
144
TheAgnosticForum.com
Worldview

Agnosticism

To add to my last post...
Here's a Conversative analysis regarding abortion not being mentioned in the Constitution...

And here's a moderate (but on a left-leaning network) analysis:

There you have it. MSNBC vs. Fox News... both points of view
 

AgnosticBoy

Open-minded Skeptic
Administrator
Agnostic
Oct 1, 2020
786
144
TheAgnosticForum.com
Worldview

Agnosticism

At the beginning, I thought that much of the reactions to the SCOTUS leaked abortion draft opinion was an overreaction. But there's at least one governor that is threatening to put a total ban on abortion if SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade:

Nebraska GOP governor says he will call a special session to pass total abortion ban if Roe is overturned​

Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska said Sunday that he will call a special session of his state's legislature to pass a total ban on abortion if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade this term.

"Nebraska is a pro-life state. I believe life begins at conception, and those are babies too," Ricketts told CNN's Dana Bash on "State of the Union" when asked if he thought the state should require a young girl who was raped to carry the pregnancy to term. "If Roe v. Wade, which is a horrible constitutional decision, gets overturned by the Supreme Court, which we're hopeful of, here in Nebraska, we're going to take further steps to protect those preborn babies."

"Including in the case of rape or incest?" Bash asked. To which the governor replied: "They're still babies, too. Yes."

Ricketts said that in case Roe falls, "I will work with our speaker of the legislature to work on a special session and do more to protect preborn babies. We'll have to wait and see what that decision is before we can take further steps, but that would certainly be my intention."
I am against decisions like this. It doesn't seem that the Nebraska governor is utilizing any science to inform his decision, only belief.
 
M

medusa53

Guest
I think government needs to get out of the whole deal; and I mean ALL of it. A woman will get an abortion if she wants one. I do think that the only law on abortion should be that if you want an abortion; YOU must pay for the abortion. No help paying for it from any government funding. Of the over 100,000 + abortions performed each year; 1.14% are done because the moms life is in danger; 0.39% are done because of rape or incest; 1.28% because of mothers mental health and 0.69 % are done because of birth defects. That leaves 96.50% of abortions being paid for mostly by taxpayers and that needs to be stopped. There are free birth control pills everywhere. Also, fighting for a law ( Roe v Wade ) that was built on a total lie doesn't help their case. The woman admitted she had never been raped, had the child, and put it up for adoption. If you want to idolize the woman; follow her example.