It’s not looking good for Roe v Wade

Yesterday, it seemed like there was the possibility of a chance that SCOTUS could so something other than eviscerate abortion rights nationally. Today, not so much. I don’t have the energy to write a real post about it, so I’m just going to point you to coverage at The 19th, Slate (twice), TPM, Mother Jones, and Daily Kos. Or you could have spent five minutes on Twitter, or you could be like me and get a billion campaign/action/fundraising emails from a multitude of organizations, all with the same message.

Lots of people think that this will change the political dynamics, and indeed maybe it will. Anger is a strong motivator, and this has already made a lot of folks on my side angry. But winning is a big motivator, too, and the people that have been pushing for forced births for decades are within sight of getting what they want. Whatever happens with the politics, the real world effects of this are going to be very bad, very harmful, and not at all easy to undo. The one thing we can’t do is stop fighting, because the other guys sure aren’t going to.

Related Posts:

This entry was posted in Legal matters, National news and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to It’s not looking good for Roe v Wade

  1. Jason Hochman says:

    I have never seen anything in the Constitution that says that abortion is an unalienable right endowed by the Creator.

  2. Dude Kembro says:

    Tell me you don’t know about the constitution’s unemerated rights without telling me that you don’t know about the constitution’s unemerated rights.

    There’s nothing in the constitution that gives SCOTUS the right to strike down laws, by the way.

  3. C.L. says:

    There’s probably more issues that have been set in stone as legal precedent through Court decisions than there are detailed in the 234 year old Constitution, Dr. Hochman.

  4. robert says:

    Nothing in the constitution prohibiting them either….

    Abortion was not just legal—it was a safe, condoned, and practiced procedure in colonial America and common enough to appear in the legal and medical records of the period. Official abortion laws did not appear on the books in the United States until 1821, and abortion before quickening did not become illegal until the 1860s. If a woman living in New England in the 17th or 18th centuries wanted an abortion, no legal, social, or religious force would have stopped her.

  5. Jason Hochman says:

    That’s a silly argument for abortion. Slavery was legal until the 1860s. If anyone living in New England in the 17th or 18th centuries wanted a slave, no legal, social, or religious force would have stopped it. So let’s bring back slavery.

  6. robert says:

    If you can’t see the difference between the 2, you’ve been cleaning grease traps too long.

    And why is it you want abortion but don’t want anything to do with the kids health, food, education, etc…. after?

    Pro-life yet death penalty….so weird.

  7. Jason Hochman says:

    robert, yes, I see the difference. A slave still gets to live, albeit in reduced circumstances. An aborted child gets to die, without due process.

    When did I say I want nothing to do with the kids health, food, or education? When did I say that I am pro death penalty?

    Abortion violates the equal protection of the constitution.

  8. robert says:

    I’m talking about the Republican party….as far as an aborted child, never knows because they don’t display glimmers of consciousness and memory until 5 months old, at the earliest.

    If they let only the females vote on abortion, I’d be OK with whatever they came up with.

  9. Pingback: State judge rules SB8 is unconstitutional – Off the Kuff

Comments are closed.