General Question

luigirovatti's avatar

Do you think the Supreme Court will vote to overturn the ruling of "Roe v Wade" related to abortion rights?

Asked by luigirovatti (2581points) 1 week ago
26 responses
“Great Question” (1points)

Given the leaked deaft opinion. For further information, look here:

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

Observing members: 0
Composing members: 0

Answers

KNOWITALL's avatar

I do not. I believe it’s a distraction.

zenvelo's avatar

Yes. It has been on the Right’s “to-do” list for fifty years. @KNOWITALL A distraction from what?

SergeantQueen's avatar

Probably. It’s going to just leave it up to the states though. Not make it federally illegal

JLeslie's avatar

^^Too many backwards states in our country.

People who hate the Roe decision don’t even know what Roe v. Wade actually says. They’ve never read it.

Demosthenes's avatar

I think it’s very likely, yes.

I do not think a nationwide ban is likely, however.

SergeantQueen's avatar

@JLeslie

Yeah, I know. But I believe most things should be up to states anyways.

jca2's avatar

@Demosthenes A nationwide ban is definitely not possible because many states have set it up so that legally, a woman couldn’t be prosecuted for obtaining an abortion and a medical provider couldn’t be prosecuted for providing an abortion.

filmfann's avatar

Of course.
Why wouldn’t they? They are taking all the hate for it.
The protests won’t do anything to change their minds. These are super legal geeks who have long lost the ability to be affected by other people’s criticism.

cookieman's avatar

I think so. I agree it will be left to the states which will further deepen the divide between ‘red’ and ‘blue’ states.

We are getting to the point where we should be known as the “States of America”.

“United” is becoming a stretch.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@zenvelo Inflation, gas prices, Ukraine/Russia threats, etc… Why wouldn’t Democrats want the hatred focused on the Right over a decision not even made?

zenvelo's avatar

@KNOWITALL Because it’s the right wing distracting the Democrats, not the Democrats distracting the Republicans.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@zenvelo Wings of the same corrupt elitist bird.

cookieman's avatar

^^ Thank you both for demonstrating my point.

Zaku's avatar

I think I don’t know for sure what they’ll do, and I hope not.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@cookieman I have been 100% for each party at ssome point in my 49 years. Not impressed with either.

Patty_Melt's avatar

I think it is possible, but I see @KNOWITALL‘S point about distraction. If the draft were primarily a conservative initiative, then it would be a democrat who would leak the draft, to put attention and outrage in the faces of conservatives.

However, considering the frequency of commercials I am seeing online and on TV lately, I think big pharma could be putting on pressure, so women not using birth control will be frightened into starting.

This much is absolute, if it was leaked, there was some major corporate pressure from somewhere involved. To take such a risk as that, big profits have to be intended.

seawulf575's avatar

I think the question asked is a bit misleading. The case before the SCOTUS and the leaked 1st draft is really about where the issue of abortion rights rests. RvW almost whimsically made abortion a Constitutional requirement. It isn’t. But RvW isn’t even the thing most people are up in arms about, even though they don’t understand it. PPvC is the thing that basically overturned RvW. It held onto the idea that it is a Constitutional right, but that was about it. It dismantled the rest of RvW.
But the case they are deciding is where the authority over abortion should sit. If it is a Constitutional issue, it sits in the federal government. If it isn’t expressly identified as a federal issue, it falls under the states’ jurisprudence. That doesn’t mean that abortion will be outlawed in all 50 states, nor does it mean that it will be outlawed in ANY of the 50 states. But there might be restrictions put onto it…restrictions like those that existed under RvW for instance.

JLeslie's avatar

@Patty_Melt More commercials about contraception? Which type of contraception? Maybe you’re just noticing the ads more because it’s a hot topic.That’s a common phenomenon.

HP's avatar

The one thing that’s rarely discussed regarding Rowe is how the plot for evading the decision follows precisely the methods employed eroding the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Those amendments were supposed to grant black folks the full rights to citizenship, just as Roe was to guarantee any woman the choice to have an abortion. And just as with places that devised methods of preventing access to the polls to those supposedly entitled to vote, these same places prevented by law from outlawing abortion, instead render it illegal to provide an abortion. The fact that truly hypocritcal justices allow so openly vacuous a distinction any credence is embarassingly shallow reasoning that future generations will regard with all the contempt it deserves.

seawulf575's avatar

@HP citizenship based on race completely goes against the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it say abortion is a right granted by the Constitution?

HP's avatar

I look forward to your explanation of abortion as a citizenship issue.

seawulf575's avatar

@HP ??? Where did I even suggest abortion is a citizenship issue? YOU tried conflating citizenship and abortion as equal. They aren’t. I have challenged you to show me where abortion is a Constitutional right. All you could do is to come up with something completely outlandish…abortion as a citizenship issue…and expect me to explain it to you. If you are going to make things up, YOU need to explain them.

HP's avatar

You have a truly fascinating and very peculiar penchant for misinterpreting what is in front of you. The gist of my statement has nothing to with abortion as a matter of citizenship, and you cannot rationally claim conflation of the 2 simply because the word appears in the paragraph. You either completely miss the point of that paragraph, or choose to once again change the subject. The subject being that the strategy devoted toward stripping women of control of their own bodies is EXACTLY the same as that employed in the suppression of black people. They are both pernicious methods practiced by the SAME places in this country to defy and defeat the established laws of the land.

seawulf575's avatar

@HP No…you don’t get to try wiggling out of that. You stated ” Those amendments were supposed to grant black folks the full rights to citizenship, just as Roe was to guarantee any woman the choice to have an abortion. ” I pointed out to you that the Constitution is rife with reasons why race should not be a consideration for citizenship. I then challenged you to show me where abortion was guaranteed by the Constitution. YOU conflated citizenship and abortion as the same thing. You THEN stated “I look forward to your explanation of abortion as a citizenship issue.” I never even hinted at that. The exact opposite as a matter of fact. I pointed out to you that they were not related, yet you persist. And now you want to say I am the one that put them together. I didn’t. I think the crux of the issue is the word “conflate”.

conflate
kən-flāt′
transitive verb
To bring together; meld or fuse.
To combine (two variant texts, for example) into one whole.
To blow together; to bring together; to collect; to fuse together; to join or weld; to consolidate.

You are the one that tied them together. You claimed Constitutional Amendments that granted citizenship to blacks also granted abortions to women. THAT is the crux of the issue. Abortion is not mentioned anywhere. Even when RvW was passed, the SCOTUS knew it was likely to be challenged as being unconstitutional and that it wouldn’t hold up to the challenges. If they had come out and claimed that a fetus was NOT a human being until some set point in the pregnancy or after delivery, they might have set a precedence that would hold up. But even then, as science progresses and babies can be born and be viable several months prior to expected date, the definition of when a fetus became a human would have been challenged and would have to have been altered.

HP's avatar

Once again, you fail to understand what’s right in front of you. There is nothing in that statement which can be rationally construed to mean that abortion is in any way a matter of citizenship. I said that the methods for DENYING the rights of citizenship and women access to abortion are the same. THAT’s ALL it says.

seawulf575's avatar

And when you try putting those two things together, you are conflating. They are unrelated. But when you do, the argument has to be to show how they are different. Citizenship based on color is wrong….it is spelled out in the Constitution many times in many ways. Abortion is not mentioned once in the Constitution…and you know it. So your comparison is bullshit.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

Mobile | Desktop


Send Feedback   

`