Politics USA to Outlaw Abortion

[Jovialis]

I think this is a terrible turn of events. I don't understand how "conservatives" think. If you want to have less-to-no people on welfare, why do you prohibit poor people from access to abortion, only to create more unplanned babies born into poverty? Also, with all of the problems we currently have, why are we rocking the boat to the point of it capsizing? This is part of the reason why I am not a Republican anymore, and I am registered as unaffiliated/independent.


https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

 

[Palermo Trapani]

Jovialis: Taking aside my moral position on the question. If Roe is overturned, it will not outlaw abortion. It will put the abortion question back to where it was in 1973 before Roe was issued (January of that year). California had very liberal laws, as did New York, in essence abortion on demand. Other states had more restrictive laws, no abortion after 1 month, some 2 months, etc, etc. As the late Justice Scalia stated, the US Constitution is silent on the question, does not outlaw it, does not grant it. Thus, what is not granted to the Feds under the 10th amendment falls back to the states. So absent a Amendment to the US Constitution, each state will enact laws passed by their respective legislature and signed by their Governor.

Take for example the Death Penalty. In 1972, 5-4 SCOTUS stated the Death Penalty was against the Constitution. 5 years later, they reversed that decision. Today, 27 States have the Death Penalty, along with the US Military (Regardless of which state a Base is located) and 23 states outlaw the Death Penalty. The Country has largely adjusted to this reality. People who feel the Death penalty is a make or break issue can vote with their feet and move to a state that has Death penalty laws in line with their individual views. I live in Death Penalty state and would vote against any politician at the State level campaigning to totally outlaw it.

So my take is once all the rhetoric in the press dies down, if SCOTUS overturns Roe, then we are back to a situation similar to Pre Roe 1973 regarding abortion and where we were in 1977 when SCOTUS reversed its 1972 decision on the Death Penalty, states and voters in each respective state will decide on what the laws in their state will be.

 

[Angela]

Jovialis: Taking aside my moral position on the question. If Roe is overturned, it will not outlaw abortion. It will put the abortion question back to where it was in 1973 before Roe was issued (January of that year). California had very liberal laws, as did New York, in essence abortion on demand. Other states had more restrictive laws, no abortion after 1 month, some 2 months, etc, etc. As the late Justice Scalia stated, the US Constitution is silent on the question, does not outlaw it, does not grant it. Thus, what is not granted to the Feds under the 10th amendment falls back to the states. So absent a Amendment to the US Constitution, each state will enact laws passed by their respective legislature and signed by their Governor.

Take for example the Death Penalty. In 1972, 5-4 SCOTUS stated the Death Penalty was against the Constitution. 5 years later, they reversed that decision. Today, 27 States have the Death Penalty, along with the US Military (Regardless of which state a Base is located) and 23 states outlaw the Death Penalty. The Country has largely adjusted to this reality. People who feel the Death penalty is a make or break issue can vote with their feet and move to a state that has Death penalty laws in line with their individual views. I live in Death Penalty state and would vote against any politician at the State level campaigning to totally outlaw it.

So my take is once all the rhetoric in the press dies down, if SCOTUS overturns Roe, then we are back to a situation similar to Pre Roe 1973 regarding abortion and where we were in 1977 when SCOTUS reversed its 1972 decision on the Death Penalty, states and voters in each respective state will decide on what the laws in their state will be.

That's it in a nutshell. The people in their jurisdictions will vote on the kinds of abortion laws they want, which is as it should be, imo. Judges shouldn't be deciding it.

As to who gets abortions, I haven't researched it in quite a while, so perhaps things have changed, but my best recollection is that white women and specifically white middle class women avail themselves of abortion more often than do minority women.

 

[firetown]

I don't understand how "conservatives" think.

It's really circle jerk polarization where fringe groups talk each other into something and due to lack of opinion in either direction of others, the circle expands.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

That's it in a nutshell. The people in their jurisdictions will vote on the kinds of abortion laws they want, which is as it should be, imo. Judges shouldn't be deciding it.

As to who gets abortions, I haven't researched it in quite a while, so perhaps things have changed, but my best recollection is that white women and specifically white middle class women avail themselves of abortion more often than do minority women.

Thanks Angela, I know you were once, and maybe still are, a practicing attorney so getting some agreement from you on this is appreciated.

 

[Angela]

Thanks Angela, I know you were once, and maybe still are, a practicing attorney so getting some agreement from you on this is appreciated.

The absolute garbage that's being written on both sides is really disheartening.

What's perhaps even more disturbing to me, and indicates to me that the wheels may really be coming off the bus of our experiment in democracy, is that this was leaked in the first place.

It's a violation of everything which as attorneys we are, or used to be, taught to reverence and protect. That someone working at the Supreme Court would do such a thing is mind boggling. I'm still in a bit of a state of shock at the extraordinary lack of ethics.

At the same time, as a former litigator, I was drawn into listening to every inning of the Depp v Heard trial (via a bud in my ear as I go about my day, even in doctor's offices), and I am learning from Ms. Heard's team that there are so called "experts" today in the field of forensic psychology and spousal abuse who maintain that there is virtually no circumstance where a woman might be the perpetrator of physical violence and a man the victim.

Something is profoundly wrong intellectually and morally with the modern psyche and it spells trouble for our western societies.

 

[Palermo Trapani]

The absolute garbage that's being written on both sides is really disheartening.

What's perhaps even more disturbing to me, and indicates to me that the wheels may really be coming off the bus of our experiment in democracy, is that this was leaked in the first place.

It's a violation of everything which as attorneys we are, or used to be, taught to reverence and protect. That someone working at the Supreme Court would do such a thing is mind boggling. I'm still in a bit of a state of shock at the extraordinary lack of ethics.

At the same time, as a former litigator, I was drawn into listening to every inning of the Depp v Heard trial (via a bud in my ear as I go about my day, even in doctor's offices), and I am learning from Ms. Heard's team that there are so called "experts" today in the field of forensic psychology and spousal abuse who maintain that there is virtually no circumstance where a woman might be the perpetrator of physical violence and a man the victim.

Something is profoundly wrong intellectually and morally with the modern psyche and it spells trouble for our western societies.

The media is already going into crazy mode. My views and how I was taught back in 7th grade in late 70's in history (American) and later in High school (Civics and Government) and in college in the mid 80's was the USA is a Constitutional Republic with democratic elections. So when I hear the term "our Democracy" as things can be forced on 330 million people that are not in the Constitution, one way or the other, it alarms me. The 10th Amendment approach that Justice Scalia always argued solves these issues. Look at media polls, the pollsters get the answers the want, kind of like the great UK comedy Prime Minister about "Leading Questions". Polls on Abortion are varied and the answers reflect how the question is framed. For example, one poll ask do think Roe should be overturned, 60% say No (Fox poll addressed that question). But the Fox poll also revealed as you move up to 6 weeks, 50% in favor outlawing it, but 15 weeks even more (54%). MSNBC asked do you think abortion should be illegal in 1st trimester, majority says no which is I think what Fox was asking (12 weeks), then when MSNBC asked about do you think Abortion should not be legal starting with 2nd trimester, the numbers go to like 65% No. By the 3rd it is 80% no. Politicians trying to impose a binary solution on this question are to me going to cause serious damage.

So absent a Constitutional amendment one way or the other, which is not going to happen. The best approach is for it to go back the states to avoid this tearing apart at the core which is what is going to happen. Schumer, from your home state is now back to talking about packing the court to force Roe v. Wade back if the current SCOTUS overturns it. That is dangerous and borders on tyranny of small group of elites.

 

[torzio]

Another slap in the face for Women

at least Australia is going in the opposite direction of the USA

 

[blevins13]

I think this is a terrible turn of events. I don't understand how "conservatives" think. If you want to have less-to-no people on welfare, why do you prohibit poor people from access to abortion, only to create more unplanned babies born into poverty? Also, with all of the problems we currently have, why are we rocking the boat to the point of it capsizing? This is part of the reason why I am not a Republican anymore, and I am registered as unaffiliated/independent.


https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

I am am wondering what will be the penalty for the women that will perform illegal abortion, death or prison. And if prison how many years.




Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

 

[bigsnake49]

The question in my mind, if the question is thrown back to the states, is will traveling to an "abortion state" to get an abortion going to be penalized. If the answer is yes then the SCOTUS will have to intervene and will have abortion bans throughout the land. BTW didn't Gorsuch and Kavanaugh say during the Senate hearings that Roe vs Wade was settled law. I wonder what happened meanwhile to convince them to change their mind.

Another question is should a woman be forced to carry on with her pregnancy, should the state assume all expenses associated with the pregnancy and subsequent raising of an unwanted child? What about the responsibility of the male involved in conception. Maybe when all these politicians' sons and daughters are faced to raise and or pay for unwanted children they will realize what a totally stupid thing they brought upon society.
My wife and I have had a lot of discusions about h Supreme Court and in general about the appointment of judges. She served as a judge so she has an opinion in this. Her are some of our ideas:

1. No judge should serve past their 75th birthday
2. No judge should be appointed before their 40th birthday and only after serving as a lawyer for at least 5 years
3. Appellate judges should be appointed only after they have served for at least 5 years at the circuit court
4. Supreme Court judges should be rotated from among the appellate court judges every 5 years.

Age limits should also be set for representatives, senators and presidents. I don't care who you are there is mental deterioration after a certain age. and can we please extend the time representatives serve to 4 years, staggered of course.

 

[Angela]

I doubt traveling to another state to do something legal in that state could be banned. If nothing else it would be banning travel and a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act.

Settled Law is settled law until it isn't. This isn't the first Supreme Court Case to be overturned.

Part of the problem is that Roe v Wade is one of the most poorly reasoned and written Supreme Court Cases in history. Even Justice Ginzburg said that. It was certainly obvious to me even as a law student. Casey is a mess because there is no majority decision so lower court judges struggle with how to interpret standards. It was and is an untenable situation.

When everything shakes out and people select a new round of state legislators I think you will have a few states where they will allow women to abort almost full term fetuses.

A few states will ban it unless it will kill the mother, which is allowed even under Roman Catholic doctrine.

The majority will, I think, vote for term limits more in line with those in Europe and with what we have learned scientifically about fetuses and abortion procedures, which is to say setting the limit at perhaps 12 to 16 weeks, absent exigent circumstances as in for fetuses with terrible abnormalities. That's actually where most people would land in terms of their common sense reaction to it, imo.

What is going on in front of the homes of the Justices and Catholic Churches and the fact that the administration is, imo, tacitly encouraging it is reprehensible. The independence of the third branch of government is something which should be sacrosanct, as is the fact that courts are meant to interpret law, NOT make it. That is for the legislature.

 

[bigsnake49]

I doubt traveling to another state to do something legal in that state could be banned. If nothing else it would be banning travel and a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act.

Settled Law is settled law until it isn't. This isn't the first Supreme Court Case to be overturned.

Part of the problem is that Roe v Wade is one of the most poorly reasoned and written Supreme Court Cases in history. Even Justice Ginzburg said that. It was certainly obvious to me even as a law student. Casey is a mess because there is no majority decision so lower court judges struggle with how to interpret standards. It was and is an untenable situation.

When everything shakes out and people select a new round of state legislators I think you will have a few states where they will allow women to abort almost full term fetuses.

A few states will ban it unless it will kill the mother, which is allowed even under Roman Catholic doctrine.

The majority will, I think, vote for term limits more in line with those in Europe and with what we have learned scientifically about fetuses and abortion procedures, which is to say setting the limit at perhaps 12 to 16 weeks, absent exigent circumstances as in for fetuses with terrible abnormalities. That's actually where most people would land in terms of their common sense reaction to it, imo.

What is going on in front of the homes of the Justices and Catholic Churches and the fact that the administration is, imo, tacitly encouraging it is reprehensible. The independence of the third branch of government is something which should be sacrosanct, as is the fact that courts are meant to interpret law, NOT make it. That is for the legislature.

The independence of the third branch is sacrosanct but when both sides appoint judges to the federal bench that have absolutely no qualifications to be there other than they are well connected and of the right color (red or blue) then that sanctity is not absolute. For example here in Florida appellate judge have been appointed to the district court of appeals whose only qualifications were that they worked at the governor's office. The problem with that is that appellate judges are subject to retention and not election and very rarely if ever are they not retained. Now there are enough competent judges at the appeals courts to drown out the incompetency of these political appointees and those are the ones that actually write most of the opinions. I mean it's a nice plum appointment for working at the governors office for 4-8 years. It's what happens when the competent appellate judges die or retire and you are left with the useless political appointees. Are the appeals courts going to be run by the law clerks?

 

[Angela]

Largely agree.

It's much, much worse at the state court level, imo, having some experience with both the federal and state bench. A lot of them are party hacks who were put on the ballot because they attended X number of events for Y party and wanted the position because they weren't making a hell of a lot of money in legal fees. It infuriates the good judges.

The voters don't have a clue what kind of reputation the candidates have in the Bar. If the voters are Democrats they vote for the judge with a "D" next to the name, and likewise Republicans vote for the judge with an "R" next to his or her name. The only exception would be if the judge was involved with a notorious case or was involved in some sort of personal scandal. Voters just aren't very informed about the background or competency of the people running for a judgeship.

As a former Law Clerk I can tell you that a big part of my job was rescuing the judge I worked for, who didn't have a freaking clue most of the time. The attorneys in front of him were understandably furious at times, wondering whom they should be addressing.

That said, when you get to the appellate level in the federal system or even superior court level in the state system the majority of the judges are usually competent. You don't have to "cringe" when you say I'm Law Clerk for X judge.

I've always maintained my interest in constitutional law, and when new important cases are decided I always read all the opinions and refresh my recollection of the opinions upon which the new ruling leans. You get pretty familiar with the "voice" of certain judges. You can tell with certain justices that it changes relatively frequently. With others you know it's basically him or her even if the law clerks are doing all of the grunt work.

 

[bigsnake49]

Largely agree.

It's much, much worse at the state court level, imo, having some experience with both the federal and state bench. A lot of them are party hacks who were put on the ballot because they attended X number of events for Y party and wanted the position because they weren't making a hell of a lot of money in legal fees. It infuriates the good judges.

The voters don't have a clue what kind of reputation the candidates have in the Bar. If the voters are Democrats they vote for the judge with a "D" next to the name, and likewise Republicans vote for the judge with an "R" next to his or her name. The only exception would be if the judge was involved with a notorious case or was involved in some sort of personal scandal. Voters just aren't very informed about the background or competency of the people running for a judgeship.

As a former Law Clerk I can tell you that a big part of my job was rescuing the judge I worked for, who didn't have a freaking clue most of the time. The attorneys in front of him were understandably furious at times, wondering whom they should be addressing.

That said, when you get to the appellate level in the federal system or even superior court level in the state system the majority of the judges are usually competent. You don't have to "cringe" when you say I'm Law Clerk for X judge.

I've always maintained my interest in constitutional law, and when new important cases are decided I always read all the opinions and refresh my recollection of the opinions upon which the new ruling leans. You get pretty familiar with the "voice" of certain judges. You can tell with certain justices that it changes relatively frequently. With others you know it's basically him or her even if the law clerks are doing all of the grunt work.

I know that the attorneys know a lot more about the competency of the judges that they appeared in front of than the general public. I have long supported that judges should be elected by the members of the bar for that circuit rather than the general public. It was infuriating here in Florida that lay, political people were appointed to the Judicial Nominating Commissions instead of just Bar Members as before. Politicization of the judge election process has increased as a result.