Beginning of the End for Roe v Wade?

Jun 4, 2004
12,630
728
146
#1
If SCOTUS doesn’t take up this case and rule against Louisiana (which is a carbon copy of the Texas case SCOTUS deemed unconstitutional a year or two ago when Kennedy was still around) then states would be free to legislate abortion providers out of a job under the guise of protecting women.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/01/june-medical-services-abortion-end-of-roe.html

With Brett “I Like Beer Kavanaugh” on the court in place of Kennedy it’s basically up to whether Roberts wants to end Roe or protect the precident his court set.

Decisions decisions.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
23,871
172
126
#2
Jun 4, 2004
12,630
728
146
#3
Don't care which way they decide as long as they consistently apply the principle; e.g. if they allow this TRAP law to stand in LA they ought to allow laws harassing gun owners like the one in NYC that's being reviewed by SCOTUS soon. And vice versa if they strike it down.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/us/politics/supreme-court-guns-nyc-license.html
I agree. If SCOTUS wants to confirm that any pretense can be used to justify a law diametrically opposed to or even having nothing to do with that law then they should apply that legal “reasoning “ uniformly.

Of course it’s only because of motivated politcal reasoning one would support that legal theory in the first place so no way in hell it gets applied to anything other than abortion.


That being said, once abortion is illegal and the government can force women to give birth, I’d like to see states implement punitive laws against any man who gets a woman pregnant who didn’t want to be.

Say forced surgical sterilization. Since forced birth and lack of bodily autonomy is to be the legal punishment for women who aren’t “responsible “ I don’t see an issue with removing the mans bodily autonomy and ability to be sexually irresponsible.

Or you know the government could stay the fuck out of it.
 

tweaker2

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2000
9,457
289
126
#4
Two steps forward and then three steps back into the medieval ages where powerful religious influence was used to perpetuate its dominance over the populace.

You'd think after hundreds of years of maturing, the civilized world would be able to allow the women of the world the ability to have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies with prevailing morals as guidance (edit added) ---> without having the religious orders determining what is and isn't allowed for women to pick and choose from?
 
Last edited:
Jun 4, 2004
12,630
728
146
#5
Two steps forward and then three steps back into the medieval ages where powerful religious influence was used to perpetuate its dominance over the populace.

You'd think after hundreds of years of maturing, the civilized world would be able to allow the women of the world the ability to have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies.
If Roe goes I’d expect the 2020 election to be even more of a blood bath for the GOP than 2018 was. The pendulum keeps swinging farther and farther. It might even swing far enough to take the senate by enough votes to get some federal laws passed to start fixing the absolute cluster fuck that’s happening.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,876
590
126
#6
Not sure Republicans really want Roe to go down it's such an important wedge issue.
 
Jun 4, 2004
12,630
728
146
#7
Not sure Republicans really want Roe to go down it's such an important wedge issue.
At this point I’d say it’s 55/45 Roe survives. Roberts doesn’t want it but I think he wants to protect his legacy more. But we’ll see
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,876
590
126
#8
At this point I’d say it’s 55/45 Roe survives. Roberts doesn’t want it but I think he wants to protect his legacy more. But we’ll see
I think it would trigger a war to tax churches that they would lose in the end. Freedom of religion comes with the responsibility not to legislate religious beliefs. Radicals might also take to burning them down. It will mean a lot of dead women from illegal abortions and that will produce a very similar reaction as abortion is murder. It will show that anti abortion is also murder too, but those who are murdered in the former case will have lots of family and friends.
 

tweaker2

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2000
9,457
289
126
#9
I think it would trigger a war to tax churches that they would lose in the end. Freedom of religion comes with the responsibility not to legislate religious beliefs. Radicals might also take to burning them down. It will mean a lot of dead women from illegal abortions and that will produce a very similar reaction as abortion is murder. It will show that anti abortion is also murder too, but those who are murdered in the former case will have lots of family and friends.
I agree with your idea of the consequences that the Christian Church's efforts to legislate their beliefs into law will produce. It seems to me though that this conflict between the religious faithful and our Constitution may be based on the simple idea that the morals of our nation's agnostics have with the passing of time changed/progressed - (ie gay marriage/abortion rights etc.) of whom I think comprise the majority of the nation is in direct contrast with the shrinking religious right's unyielding adherence to a ~2000 year old (?) code of conduct?

As a result, the Churches have resorted to defying/gaming the Constitution in order to force their will on the rest of the nation?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,876
590
126
#10
I agree with your idea of the consequences that the Christian Church's efforts to legislate their beliefs into law will produce. It seems to me though that this conflict between the religious faithful and our Constitution may be based on the simple idea that the morals of our nation's agnostics have with the passing of time changed/progressed - (ie gay marriage/abortion rights etc.) of whom I think comprise the majority of the nation is in direct contrast with the shrinking religious right's unyielding adherence to a ~2000 year old (?) code of conduct?

As a result, the Churches have resorted to defying/gaming the Constitution in order to force their will on the rest of the nation?
In short what I see is that the moral certainty that abortion is an evil in the eyes of God, is the same moral certainty that allows such believers to dismiss all other claims as irrevelant, the constitution included.
 
Last edited:
Nov 8, 2012
11,317
1,014
126
#11
I think it would trigger a war to tax churches that they would lose in the end. Freedom of religion comes with the responsibility not to legislate religious beliefs. Radicals might also take to burning them down. It will mean a lot of dead women from illegal abortions and that will produce a very similar reaction as abortion is murder. It will show that anti abortion is also murder too, but those who are murdered in the former case will have lots of family and friends.
Can we tax churches? Pleaaaaaaaase?
 
Feb 5, 2006
33,008
204
126
#14
Young women didn't turn out in 2016, with a tie-breaking SCOTUS seat vacant. If they don't care enough about this issue to vote, I don't either.
 
Jul 12, 2006
93,947
2,051
136
#16
This would be very bad for GOP legislators. Legal abortion is very instrumental in helping them to keep their very strong "family values" habits out of the public eye. It's why they pay it much lip service for votes, but always conveniently fail to do anything about it when it comes to actual policy.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
52,109
2,313
126
#17
This would be very bad for GOP legislators. Legal abortion is very instrumental in helping them to keep their very strong "family values" habits out of the public eye. It's why they pay it much lip service for votes, but always conveniently fail to do anything about it when it comes to actual policy.
Wealthy women will always have access to abortion in other countries. They can just pop off for a few days in Canada, England, Sweden, wherever.
 

Ajay

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2001
4,996
124
136
#18
Freedom of religion comes with the responsibility not to legislate religious beliefs.
I don’t recall reading this in the constitution. Do you have another source?
 
Jun 23, 2005
14,924
476
126
#19
I agree. If SCOTUS wants to confirm that any pretense can be used to justify a law diametrically opposed to or even having nothing to do with that law then they should apply that legal “reasoning “ uniformly.

Of course it’s only because of motivated politcal reasoning one would support that legal theory in the first place so no way in hell it gets applied to anything other than abortion.


That being said, once abortion is illegal and the government can force women to give birth, I’d like to see states implement punitive laws against any man who gets a woman pregnant who didn’t want to be.

Say forced surgical sterilization. Since forced birth and lack of bodily autonomy is to be the legal punishment for women who aren’t “responsible “ I don’t see an issue with removing the mans bodily autonomy and ability to be sexually irresponsible.

Or you know the government could stay the fuck out of it.
But this is America. Where Conservatives apply the "rules for thee, but not for me" mentality when it comes to the rule of law. Expect laws that use a certain logic to hurt conservative issues to be struct down while the same logic that hurts liberal issues to be upheld.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
63,876
590
126
#20
I don’t recall reading this in the constitution. Do you have another source?
Perhaps not well worded. In a constitutional government that separates state and religion while assuring the right to any faith, it is constitutionally forbidden to legalize religious dogma as law, and thus irresponsible to do so. The majority of hard core opposition and effort to change RvW, is religious dogma based. The effort to change secular abortion law as it is religious based. The notion that abortion is evil and against the will of God is purely a matter of faith. You can’t prove there is a God and that something is evil because God says so. It violates the constitution to make such a case as a basis for law.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
52,109
2,313
126
#21
I don’t recall reading this in the constitution. Do you have another source?
It's right there under your nose in the first amendment. Not all religions hold abortion to be murder. The bible is actually moot on the subject, even though abortion has been practiced in one form or another for a couple of millenia.
 
Feb 23, 2005
17,366
354
106
#22
It's right there under your nose in the first amendment. Not all religions hold abortion to be murder. The bible is actually moot on the subject, even though abortion has been practiced in one form or another for a couple of millenia.
One of the few times I agree with you.
 
Jun 4, 2004
12,630
728
146
#23
But this is America. Where Conservatives apply the "rules for thee, but not for me" mentality when it comes to the rule of law. Expect laws that use a certain logic to hurt conservative issues to be struct down while the same logic that hurts liberal issues to be upheld.
Exactly.
Well let’s see what the score was when SCOTUS overturned the identical Texas TRAP law in 2016:

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt
Majority(6): Breyer, Kagan, Kennedy, Sotomayor, RBG, Garland


Minority(3): Alito, Roberts, Thomas

So for this Louisiana TRAP law we’d have:

Against: Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, and RBG

For: Thomas and Alito based on prior ruling

Gorsuch is about 50/50 based on his limited history with abortion adjacent rulings but more like 75 for 25 against when we see that he normally ruled for the religious side.

Kavanaugh based on his rulings and speech 90 for 10 against.

Which leaves us with Roberts. Based on his previous ruling I have no doubt he would rule in favor of allowing TRAP laws. However in a few major cases (notably the ACA) he’s ruled in the opposite mannor expected. He does have an eye on the courts legacy and if he thinks effectively overturning Roe would tarnish that legacy he’ll rule against the TRAP law. So maybe 50/50 chance.

So you might be right and it won’t happen but I still think it’s not very unlikely to happen.

Whatever happens it will be a 5/4 ruling.
 
Dec 18, 2010
18,757
650
106
www.countrylifenet.com
#24
Beginning of the End for Roe v Wade?
.
Good. Whoever is pro-abortion is on the wrong side of history.

In a few hundred, or maybe a thousand years, our ancestors will call us barbaric for allowing unborn children to be killed.

Hopefully, one day our society will be able to take care of unwanted children, rather than killing them. As society evolves and becomes more enlightened, the idea of having an abortion will be repulsive.
 
Jun 4, 2004
12,630
728
146
#25
Good. Whoever is pro-abortion is on the wrong side of history.

In a few hundred, or maybe a thousand years, our ancestors will call us barbaric for allowing unborn children to be killed.

Hopefully, one day our society will be able to take care of unwanted children, rather than killing them.
I’ve never met someone seriously claiming to be pro abortion. Most of the country think the decisions on the health of the mother and fetus rest with the mother, her family, and her doctor and that your hubris and self-righteousness shouldn’t figure in to it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS