What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Will Roe vs Wade be overturned? Make your prediction. (1 Viewer)

timschochet

timschochet

Footballguy
This thread is not designed to argue the merits of overturning Roe vs Wade, nor to discuss the merits of making abortion illegal in various states. We’ve had those discussion here, at great length. Since we are likely only a few weeks from a Supreme Court decision on this issue, I am asking for two predictions here: 

1. Will the Supreme Court overturn Roe vs Wade? 
 

2. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe vs Wade, will that have a decisive impact on the upcoming November elections? 

 
FWIW, here are my own predictions: 

1. The SC will uphold the Mississippi law but will not officially overturn Roe. That will allow states to restrict abortion to the point where it’s almost impossible to obtain, but officially Roe and Casey will still be the law of the land. And as much as pro-choice activists would like this decision to motivate suburban women and young people into voting this November, it won’t. Because Roe wasn’t officially overturned, not enough people will pay attention. 
 

2. if I am wrong and Roe is officially overturned, that will upset the applecart and have a decisive effect on the upcoming election. Democrats will do far better than they’re currently polling because suburban women will be outraged. Most of them don’t even realize that Roe is currently threatened. This will wake them up. (This is a big reason why, IMO, Roe will not be officially overturned.) 

Thats what I think. 

 
I’m not a fan of Roe v. Wade, but I feel that a better idea would be to make the decision obsolete, rather than just overturning it. Offering counseling, birth control, actual reproductive education and help to mothers who are considering abortion, instead of ostracizing the women who make that choice. Far too many “Christians” do just that, and I will call them un-Christlike for that behavior.

As for the questions posed: 1. I don’t think they overturn it, 2. If they do, this will be bad for everyone involved. The divide in this nation will only deepen, and we will drift further apart.

 
Thomas will vote to overturn. Confidence: 99%.
Alito will vote to overturn. Confidence: 90%.
Coney Barrett will vote to overturn. Confidence: 90%.
Gorsuch will vote to overturn. Confidence: 90%.
Kavanaugh will vote to overturn. Confidence: 60%.

Roberts will not vote to overturn (but may uphold the Mississippi law). Confidence: 75%.

Kagan will not vote to overturn. Confidence: 100%.
Sotomayor will not vote to overturn. Confidence: 100%.
Jackson will not vote to overturn. Confidence: 100%.

If we take those probabilities as accurate and treat them as independent events, the chance of overturning Roe would be about 50%. (We'd need five votes to overturn. The chance that Thomas, Alito, Coney Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would all vote to overturn is 43%. If one of them votes to uphold, Roberts could become the fifth vote to overturn.) In reality, they are not independent events. They'll be positively correlated, and the actual chance of overturning will be higher than if they were independent. So let's call it a 65% chance of overturning?

I would include effectively overturning (not just explicitly overturning) as counting for purposes of this exercise. Like, if this court does to Roe what Brown v. Board did to Plessy v. Ferguson, I think that should count.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I would include effectively overturning (not just explicitly overturning) as counting for purposes of this exercise. Like, if this court does to Roe what Brown v. Board did to Plessy v. Ferguson, I think that should count.
Click to expand...
In terms of political effect only (my second question) I don’t think it will. In order for suburban women to wake up and be outraged, Roe can’t just be effectively overturned, it has to be explicitly overturned. 
 

 
Couldn’t the Democrats cement abortion as a legal right through federal law?  Instead of using it as a political football every 2/4 years?  

 
ren hoek said:
Couldn’t the Democrats cement abortion as a legal right through federal law?  Instead of using it as a political football every 2/4 years?  
Click to expand...
When have the Democrats ever used abortion as a political issue? They should have. But unlike Republicans it’s never even discussed. 

 
In a lot of places it's been effectively overturned already. I live in a mostly liberal state in a city of 100K people. 

For someone to get an abortion, they have to drive 1 hour away. And make two trips in the same week.

This is also a city with a high poverty rate and a massive number of people don't have driver's licenses or cars.

In this city, for the young girls that need the option the most, it's effectively not an option. 

 
Another questions is.......do Republicans really want it overturned? 

Not the voters. The people controlling them.

All Party's have a fundamental problem. How do we (the wealthy) get the populace to vote in our best interest and against their own?

Dems use race. Pubs use religion and abortion is a big part of that. The one dude that started the thread about the Republican Party abandoning him said he can't vote Dem because of the abortion issue. That issue sort of holds the Party together. 

If people don't have that issue to go vote for, how else do you get so many people to vote for tax cuts for the rich?

 
pollardsvision said:
In a lot of places it's been effectively overturned already. I live in a mostly liberal state in a city of 100K people. 

For someone to get an abortion, they have to drive 1 hour away. And make two trips in the same week.

This is also a city with a high poverty rate and a massive number of people don't have driver's licenses or cars.

In this city, for the young girls that need the option the most, it's effectively not an option. 
Click to expand...
I know there are a lot of places like this. But suburban women aren’t paying attention. They’re concerned about gas prices so they’re going to vote Republican. Only actually overturning Roe MIGHT change their minds. Nothing else will, IMO. 

 
pollardsvision said:
Another questions is.......do Republicans really want it overturned? 

Not the voters. The people controlling them.

All Party's have a fundamental problem. How do we (the wealthy) get the populace to vote in our best interest and against their own?

Dems use race. Pubs use religion and abortion is a big part of that. The one dude that started the thread about the Republican Party abandoning him said he can't vote Dem because of the abortion issue. That issue sort of holds the Party together. 

If people don't have that issue to go vote for, how else do you get so many people to vote for tax cuts for the rich?
Click to expand...
The answer is: probably not for the reasons you stated. 
But it’s not up to them anymore. It’s up to the justices they selected. Do Barrett and Kavanaugh and the rest care about politics? Enough to avoid overturning Roe? I think they do. But we’ll find out soon enough. 

 
timschochet said:
I know there are a lot of places like this. But suburban women aren’t paying attention. They’re concerned about gas prices so they’re going to vote Republican. Only actually overturning Roe MIGHT change their minds. Nothing else will, IMO. 
Click to expand...
I agree. None of use care about an issue  it effects us. For suburban women, the current lack of access issue isn't as paramount. If you have means, you can get around it. 

Not an option altogether would be cause for some voting action. And I agree that's probably what it would take.

Add that to the reasons Republicans controlling the message probably don't want it overturned. As it stands, Republicans can severely limit access in a way where suburban folk can still get access. Most importantly, they can still dangle that carrot.

That carrot has been so incredibly effective. Just look at Republican success in national politics since Roe. The wealth gap and the national debt have both boomed in that time, but it doesn't matter. Evangelicals are going to punch the R button every time. 

 
pollardsvision said:
Evangelicals are going to punch the R button every time. 
Click to expand...
Exactly. I have a lot of religious Christian conservative friends and family members. They all voted for Trump the last few times. Everybody wants to know, how could religious Christians vote for an immoral clown like Trump? 
 

The answer is: these aren’t stupid people. They knew what they were getting. They wanted nationalism and nativism. And they ESPECIALLY wanted Roe overturned. And with regard to the last, they knew that while other Republicans might offer lip service and then appoint moderated like Roberts, Trump would appoint the guys to get the job done. Which he did. 

 
Interesting question. I haven’t really been paying attention, but if Maurile is correct in his odds, seems pretty likely. Any flavor of overturn will dramatically influence voters, mostly women who will switch from R to D. Also may increase younger voter turn out.

 
pollardsvision said:
Another questions is.......do Republicans really want it overturned? 

Not the voters. The people controlling them.

All Party's have a fundamental problem. How do we (the wealthy) get the populace to vote in our best interest and against their own?

Dems use race. Pubs use religion and abortion is a big part of that. The one dude that started the thread about the Republican Party abandoning him said he can't vote Dem because of the abortion issue. That issue sort of holds the Party together. 

If people don't have that issue to go vote for, how else do you get so many people to vote for tax cuts for the rich?
Click to expand...
Agreed. Often times they would rather have the issue remain unsettled and an issue to motivate people to vote.

 
honest question, not a lawyer,  but isn’t Casey really the precedent?  I thought that established undue burden

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Thomas will vote to overturn. Confidence: 99%.
Alito will vote to overturn. Confidence: 90%.
Coney Barrett will vote to overturn. Confidence: 90%.
Gorsuch will vote to overturn. Confidence: 90%.
Kavanaugh will vote to overturn. Confidence: 60%.

Roberts will not vote to overturn (but may uphold the Mississippi law). Confidence: 75%.

Kagan will not vote to overturn. Confidence: 100%.
Sotomayor will not vote to overturn. Confidence: 100%.
Jackson will not vote to overturn. Confidence: 100%.

If we take those probabilities as accurate and treat them as independent events, the chance of overturning Roe would be about 50%. (We'd need five votes to overturn. The chance that Thomas, Alito, Coney Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would all vote to overturn is 43%. If one of them votes to uphold, Roberts could become the fifth vote to overturn.) In reality, they are not independent events. They'll be positively correlated, and the actual chance of overturning will be higher than if they were independent. So let's call it a 65% chance of overturning?

I would include effectively overturning (not just explicitly overturning) as counting for purposes of this exercise. Like, if this court does to Roe what Brown v. Board did to Plessy v. Ferguson, I think that should count.
Click to expand...
Dude, what's with all the math? 

The chances are either 0% or 100%. It either will or it won't happen. 

 
joffer said:
honest question, not a lawyer,  but isn’t Casey really the precedent?  I thought that established undue burden
Click to expand...
Roe established that abortion is a fundamental constitutional right. Casey refined the contours of that right a bit.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Thomas will vote to overturn. Confidence: 99%.
Alito will vote to overturn. Confidence: 90%.
Coney Barrett will vote to overturn. Confidence: 90%.
Gorsuch will vote to overturn. Confidence: 90%.
Kavanaugh will vote to overturn. Confidence: 60%.

Roberts will not vote to overturn (but may uphold the Mississippi law). Confidence: 75%.

Kagan will not vote to overturn. Confidence: 100%.
Sotomayor will not vote to overturn. Confidence: 100%.
Jackson will not vote to overturn. Confidence: 100%.

If we take those probabilities as accurate and treat them as independent events, the chance of overturning Roe would be about 50%. (We'd need five votes to overturn. The chance that Thomas, Alito, Coney Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would all vote to overturn is 43%. If one of them votes to uphold, Roberts could become the fifth vote to overturn.) In reality, they are not independent events. They'll be positively correlated, and the actual chance of overturning will be higher than if they were independent. So let's call it a 65% chance of overturning?

I would include effectively overturning (not just explicitly overturning) as counting for purposes of this exercise. Like, if this court does to Roe what Brown v. Board did to Plessy v. Ferguson, I think that should count.
Click to expand...
I would say I agree with the likelihood and chances Roe would be overturned as I don’t think the current makeup of the court represents the population as it is much more socially conservative. Not sure if the court will kick the can down the road and skirt the issue but right now I sense it will be overturned. While the majority of people I know in rural church going  America are pro life the slight majority nationwide want to keep Roe in place with some restrictions. It will indeed be interesting to see how the court uses the Constitution to overturn Roe however.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Can somebody explain how the Supreme Court can uphold the Mississippi law AND not overturn Roe v. Wade?  
Click to expand...
The Mississippi law, as I understand it, forbids abortion after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.

The Supreme Court could say that it's preserving Casey's viability framework (which modified Roe's trimester framework), but that it will defer to state legislatures on the subject of when a fetus is viable. If Mississippi thinks 15 weeks sounds about right, then 15 weeks it is.

Or something like that. No matter the details, I think it's almost always possible to frame a new decision as distinguishing or reinterpreting precedent rather than overturning it.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
@timschochet- can you take a stab at this question?  It seems like it would be fundamental to the entire premise of the thread.
Click to expand...
I really don’t know. I have read lawyers asset exactly what you are saying- that they can’t do one without the other. 
 

But somehow I think they will try anyhow. Because again, they don’t want to wake up suburban women, who are currently unaware or don’t care about the Mississippi law. What Republicans want, what they need, is for the Mississippi law to be upheld, and when you and I say “Roe was overturned!” they can say “no it wasn’t, it never said that.” That’s all they need- a question, an argument to confuse people, IMO. 

 
It's confusing enough to me that I couldn't possibly posit a guess as to which way this might go, or to what degree. I know what I feel and I know what I want but, for a long time I really haven't been even close to decent at predicting the outcomes of decisions I thought were rather easy to predict. I'll sit this one out, if for no other reason than I'll be disappointed if I plant a flag, no matter what.

 
timschochet said:
1. Will the Supreme Court overturn Roe vs Wade? 

2. If the Supreme Court overturns Roe vs Wade, will that have a decisive impact on the upcoming November elections? 
Click to expand...
1.  Probably.  Conservatives of lots of stripes will be justifiably disappointed if Roe/Casey aren't reversed, either explicitly or implicitly.

2.  Probably not.  People in this forum have a very poor understanding of the abortion issue.  Texas effectively banned abortion in brazen defiance of Roe and nobody cares all that much, because banning abortion is pretty popular in Texas and other red states.  On the margin, this development would probably be slightly harmful for the GOP simply to taking a winning issue off the table for them, but nothing "decisive."

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
The Mississippi law, as I understand it, forbids abortion after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy.

The Supreme Court could say that it's preserving Casey's viability framework (which modified Roe's trimester framework), but that it will defer to state legislatures on the subject of when a fetus is viable. If Mississippi thinks 15 weeks sounds about right, then 15 weeks it is.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t this be reported in the press as an outright reversal?  If states are allowed to define “viability” as 15 weeks then I don’t see how anything is left of Roe.

 
The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.

In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

The Court can now better define pregnancy, what it is, when life begins and at what point the unborn life is deserving of protection of its life. So much has changed in 50 years .... we have computers, cell phones ... and we know far better biology and science behind when a baby is alive and what a pregnancy is. 

Completely banning abortion would be an amazing moment as we progress as a society towards protecting human life.  

 
The Z Machine said:
And subjugating women again. 
Click to expand...


no, not even close, women can choose a responsibility to not get pregnant ....and I'll even meet pro-abortion people half way and allow for killing of unborn's for rape/incest/life of mother reasons ... that'll still save 98% of all babies who are killed in abortion procedures and I'll take that deal - will you ?

 
Stealthycat said:
no, not even close, women can choose a responsibility to not get pregnant ....and I'll even meet pro-abortion people half way and allow for killing of unborn's for rape/incest/life of mother reasons ... that'll still save 98% of all babies who are killed in abortion procedures and I'll take that deal - will you ?
Click to expand...
You either believe a fetus is human life or you don’t. That’s the only issue. How can you go half way on a human life? I’m OK with whatever different people believe as to the beginnings of human life because it’s a complicated issue that implicates science and spirituality. This concept that abortion is murder, except when the pregnancy is a product of rape or incest - that belies an inherent dishonesty to me. You have to ask yourself if you think that collection of cells is human life or not, then have the courage to stick to your guns on that. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Wouldn’t this be reported in the press as an outright reversal?  If states are allowed to define “viability” as 15 weeks then I don’t see how anything is left of Roe.
Click to expand...
I agree with others this is the most likely result and would also say it will not be reported as a reversal because the text of the majority opinion will make that very clear. Thomas will probably write a mixed concurrence/dissent in which he says he would reverse Roe and one or two might join him, but I don’t think they have the courage to explicitly reverse it. As always, my opinions on these things are almost always wrong. 

 
I hope it’s not, or at least fine tune it.  I am against late-term abortion unless the baby or mother is in danger.  I don’t understand the logic of people against abortions in rape cases.  I also realize it should be the woman’s.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CletiusMaximus said:
You either believe a fetus is human life or you don’t. That’s the only issue. How can you go half way on a human life? I’m OK with whatever different people believe as to the beginnings of human life because it’s a complicated issue that implicates science and spirituality. This concept that abortion is murder, except when the pregnancy is a product of rape or incest - that belies an inherent dishonesty to me. You have to ask yourself if you think that collection of cells is human life or not, then have the courage to stick to your guns on that. 
Click to expand...


oh no, I'll just agree to kill 2% of the babies to allow the other 98% to live - its still killing babies once a pregnancy begins 

this isn't belief - its science/biology 

 
If this issue is and forever will be a topic that divides us 50/50, what exactly is the point of repeated machinations to repeal and then later re-invoke Rowe V. Wade?

Literally nothing is accomplished by this posturing.  As someone posted earlier, leadership should be making progressive progress on what "everyone" can agree on: counseling, birth control, actual reproductive education and help to mothers who are considering abortion.  I would add to that copy/paste list, creating meaningful incentives for adoption versus the well-known paradigm that adoption in this country is cost and bureaucracy limited.  

 
CletiusMaximus said:
You either believe a fetus is human life or you don’t. That’s the only issue. How can you go half way on a human life? I’m OK with whatever different people believe as to the beginnings of human life because it’s a complicated issue that implicates science and spirituality. This concept that abortion is murder, except when the pregnancy is a product of rape or incest - that belies an inherent dishonesty to me. You have to ask yourself if you think that collection of cells is human life or not, then have the courage to stick to your guns on that. 
Click to expand...
As a matter of philosophy, I completely agree with you.  If it were up to me, pregnancies resulting from rape and incest would be treated no differently than any other pregnancy.  People who came into existence as a result of rape are no less human than anybody else, and their lives are just a meaningful and worthy of living as anyone else's life.  

On the other hand, I also have a pragmatic streak, and abortion is (unfortunately) a political issue.  Sometimes you have to make compromises to get 90% of what you want, especially if the alternative is getting nothing.  So if allowing abortions for rape and incest victims is a price we have to pay for banning abortion-for-convenience, I can totally get on board with that.  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
1.  Probably.  Conservatives of lots of stripes will be justifiably disappointed if Roe/Casey aren't reversed, either explicitly or implicitly.

2.  Probably not.  People in this forum have a very poor understanding of the abortion issue.  Texas effectively banned abortion in brazen defiance of Roe and nobody cares all that much, because banning abortion is pretty popular in Texas and other red states.  On the margin, this development would probably be slightly harmful for the GOP simply to taking a winning issue off the table for them, but nothing "decisive."
Click to expand...
Obviously I disagree with your second prediction. Abortion is a much bigger issue than you think but it hasn’t had a political impact so far because suburban women have basically been asleep, concentrated on all sorts of other subjects. Overturning Roe will wake them up. If that happens you will see, I predict, how wrong the statement is that “nobody cares all that much”. But for this to happen it will have to be explicit, not implicit. 

 
Stealthycat said:
The court divided pregnancy into three trimesters, and declared that the choice to end a pregnancy in the first trimester was solely up to the woman. In the second trimester, the government could regulate abortion, although not ban it, in order to protect the mother’s health.

In the third trimester, the state could prohibit abortion to protect a fetus that could survive on its own outside the womb, except when a woman’s health was in danger.

The Court can now better define pregnancy, what it is, when life begins and at what point the unborn life is deserving of protection of its life. So much has changed in 50 years .... we have computers, cell phones ... and we know far better biology and science behind when a baby is alive and what a pregnancy is. 

Completely banning abortion would be an amazing moment as we progress as a society towards protecting human life.  
Click to expand...
I asked that we not turn this thread into an “abortion is murder” argument. This thread was designed to discuss the likelihood of overturn and the political ramifications. TIA

 
timschochet said:
I asked that we not turn this thread into an “abortion is murder” argument. This thread was designed to discuss the likelihood of overturn and the political ramifications. TIA
Click to expand...


did I use the word "murder" ? I don't think I did - pin that on yourself not me

biology and science - if there is a living human mother and a uteran pregnancy, there has to be a living unborn as well - an abortion is the process of killing that unborn life, thus ending the pregnancy. its impossible to have a pregnancy is the unborn isn't alive

that's 100% factual and true - and we are 50 years since the SC ruled .... 50 years, and the SC then were judges that grew up riding horses, and amazed at color tv and a college degree wasn't common and many other things. Since that time, we see medical marvels in prenatal surgery, prenatal care etc and all that will weigh in 

is a bald eagle egg is a living bald eagle? 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

squistion
Protests Over SCOTUS Decision To Overturn Roe v. Wade Thread
2 3 4
Replies
163
Views
4K
GoBirds
GoBirds
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
GordonGekko
Lyricist Nancy Pelosi Begs Pro-Choice Voters For $15 To Attain A Team Blue Majority That Already Exists (6/30/22 18:29 PST)
Replies
17
Views
625
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top