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

[Stealthycat]

https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/report/naral-poll-suburban-women-support-reproductive-freedom/
 

This PPP polling done on behalf of NARAL seems to contradict Ivan and prove my point: suburban women, a key voting bloc, are STRONGLY pro-choice and will vote for it if energized to do so. 

1066 women surveyed is a small pool and hardly a viable source there IMO

 

[timschochet]

1066 women surveyed is a small pool and hardly a viable source there IMO

You understand how statistical sampling works, right? 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/report/naral-poll-suburban-women-support-reproductive-freedom/
 

This PPP polling done on behalf of NARAL seems to contradict Ivan and prove my point: suburban women, a key voting bloc, are STRONGLY pro-choice and will vote for it if energized to do so. 

You're citing a press release from an interest group that was obviously written to highlight a very specific point. That's okay -- interest groups do this sort of thing because they know that low-information voters will soak it up.  Not surprising to see that you took the bait.

Ask yourself this question.  It is January 2024 (say).  A major US state decides that it's had just about enough of this Roe v. Wade nonsense, so it passes a law banning abortion in naked defiance of Roe.  Surprisingly to everyone, a variety of courts uphold it.  And then the supreme court surprisingly decides to just leave it alone.  If you were asked to predict how big a deal this story would be politically, what would you have guessed?

Now remember that the hypothetical I described actually happened, and everybody just sort of shrugged their shoulders over it.  If that doesn't make you update your priors, that's on you.  

 

[Rich Conway]

You're citing a press release from an interest group that was obviously written to highlight a very specific point. That's okay -- interest groups do this sort of thing because they know that low-information voters will soak it up.  Not surprising to see that you took the bait.

Ask yourself this question.  It is January 2024 (say).  A major US state decides that it's had just about enough of this Roe v. Wade nonsense, so it passes a law banning abortion in naked defiance of Roe.  Surprisingly to everyone, a variety of courts uphold it.  And then the supreme court surprisingly decides to just leave it alone.  If you were asked to predict how big a deal this story would be politically, what would you have guessed?

Now remember that the hypothetical I described actually happened, and everybody just sort of shrugged their shoulders over it.  If that doesn't make you update your priors, that's on you.  

That's kind of true, but also kind of misleading.  Anyone paying attention, including the media who writes the stories, knows that what SCOTUS really did was just kick the can about 10 months.  At some level, it kind of reinforces @timschochet's original point; namely, SCOTUS kind of half-heartedly, temporarily dodging the question won't get people up in arms.  Whether an outright, explicit overturn of Roe would get people (choose whatever subset of people you like) up in arms remains to be seen.

 

[timschochet]

You're citing a press release from an interest group that was obviously written to highlight a very specific point. That's okay -- interest groups do this sort of thing because they know that low-information voters will soak it up.  Not surprising to see that you took the bait.

Ask yourself this question.  It is January 2024 (say).  A major US state decides that it's had just about enough of this Roe v. Wade nonsense, so it passes a law banning abortion in naked defiance of Roe.  Surprisingly to everyone, a variety of courts uphold it.  And then the supreme court surprisingly decides to just leave it alone.  If you were asked to predict how big a deal this story would be politically, what would you have guessed?

Now remember that the hypothetical I described actually happened, and everybody just sort of shrugged their shoulders over it.  If that doesn't make you update your priors, that's on you.  

The press release cites an actual poll, which is what I was referring to. And you didn’t answer my earlier question: do you admit to a strong divide between rural women and suburban/urban women on this issue? Enough to have electoral consequences? 

To your hypothetical: not a big deal at all. Because most people don’t pay attention to the news on this subject. It will ONLY be a big deal if and when the Supreme Court EXPLICITLY overturns Roe vs Wade. Which is the whole point of this thread, as well as my position. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The press release cites an actual poll, which is what I was referring to. And you didn’t answer my earlier question: do you admit to a strong divide between rural women and suburban/urban women on this issue? Enough to have electoral consequences? 

To your hypothetical: not a big deal at all. Because most people don’t pay attention to the news on this subject. It will ONLY be a big deal if and when the Supreme Court EXPLICITLY overturns Roe vs Wade. Which is the whole point of this thread, as well as my position. 

How will we know if it’s “explicit” according to your prediction?

 

[FairWarning]

why ? why be against "late term" ?

TBH, I’m not sure what the cutoff should be, last trimester?  

 

[timschochet]

How will we know if it’s “explicit” according to your prediction?

Great question. I guess it depends on the wording of the decision. Brown overturning Plessey was pretty explicit to my knowledge. At least nobody argued that Plessey was still in effect did they? 

 

[FairWarning]

The press release cites an actual poll, which is what I was referring to. And you didn’t answer my earlier question: do you admit to a strong divide between rural women and suburban/urban women on this issue? Enough to have electoral consequences? 

To your hypothetical: not a big deal at all. Because most people don’t pay attention to the news on this subject. It will ONLY be a big deal if and when the Supreme Court EXPLICITLY overturns Roe vs Wade. Which is the whole point of this thread, as well as my position. 

Is it the top issue for women?  I dont think it is.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Great question. I guess it depends on the wording of the decision. Brown overturning Plessey was pretty explicit to my knowledge. At least nobody argued that Plessey was still in effect did they? 

Technically?

"Plessy is widely regarded as one of the worst decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history.[4] Despite its infamy, the decision has never been explicitly overruled"  - wikipedia

I think that is @Rich Conway's point.  Even if it is not explicitly overruled, wouldn't the populace celebrate and/or denounce the decision as if it was if it is effectively overruled?   Is there really a difference when it comes to popular opinion?  Can the conservatives on the court (or at least the one writing the opinion), assuming they want to actually thread such a needle?  Is there any evidence that the masses could embrace such nuance and subtleties?

 

[Snotbubbles]

Did you guys miss Casey v. Planned Parenthood?  The new abortion cases can both affirm ones right to an abortion, thus upholding Roe and Casey and also move away from viability to something earlier in the pregnancy like fetal heartbeat thus overturning Casey (who already overturned Roe).

 

[Rich Conway]

Anyway, to the point of the thread, I'll make my prediction.  SCOTUS will effectively gut Roe/Casey, allowing states to create whatever roadblocks to abortion they wish.  Fox News and other right-leaning sources will say the decision didn't overturn Roe but rather clarified the limits.  MSNBC and other left-leaning sources will say the decision overturned 50+ years of precedent and now allows states to outlaw abortion.

 

[Stealthycat]

TBH, I’m not sure what the cutoff should be, last trimester?  

well to make a law, or a ruling, a cutoff has to be determined, right ?

problem is ... there is no consistency with time/dates ..... some pregnancies last 280 days, some 274 days, some 287 days .... many woman don't know exact time/day conception etc etc

 

[Zow]

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

I am a lawyer - though not exclusively a constitutional law attorney as I did not attend Harvard in the 1970s - but I share your question. 

 

[Zow]

Anyway, to the point of the thread, I'll make my prediction.  SCOTUS will effectively gut Roe/Casey, allowing states to create whatever roadblocks to abortion they wish.  Fox News and other right-leaning sources will say the decision didn't overturn Roe but rather clarified the limits.  MSNBC and other left-leaning sources will say the decision overturned 50+ years of precedent and now allows states to outlaw abortion.

Now that we're including Casey as the precedent to be overturned, I agree with this prediction. 

 

[Zow]

You're citing a press release from an interest group that was obviously written to highlight a very specific point. That's okay -- interest groups do this sort of thing because they know that low-information voters will soak it up.  Not surprising to see that you took the bait.

Ask yourself this question.  It is January 2024 (say).  A major US state decides that it's had just about enough of this Roe v. Wade nonsense, so it passes a law banning abortion in naked defiance of Roe.  Surprisingly to everyone, a variety of courts uphold it.  And then the supreme court surprisingly decides to just leave it alone.  If you were asked to predict how big a deal this story would be politically, what would you have guessed?

Now remember that the hypothetical I described actually happened, and everybody just sort of shrugged their shoulders over it.  If that doesn't make you update your priors, that's on you.  

Burn!

 

[Snotbubbles]

Now that we're including Casey as the precedent to be overturned, I agree with this prediction. 

Of course.  (see, GA voting law bill and FL trans law bill)

 

[Zow]

why ? why be against "late term" ?

Because the fetus is viable at that point.*

*I recognize I'm probably in the minority, but I thought Casey v. Planned Parenthood was decided perfectly from a legal sense and given the challenge of the issue. 

 

[Stealthycat]

Because the fetus is viable at that point.*

a bald eagle egg isn't viable .... is it still a living unborn eagle and thus should be protected? in your opinion 

 

[Zow]

a bald eagle egg isn't viable .... is it still a living unborn eagle and thus should be protected? in your opinion 

I'm going to respect the wishes of the OP and respectfully decline to address your question as it raises a different issue. 

 

[Nugget]

It would be fantastic if Congress would actually legislate instead of leaving issues up to the courts. 

 

[JIslander]

Anyway, to the point of the thread, I'll make my prediction.  SCOTUS will effectively gut Roe/Casey, allowing states to create whatever roadblocks to abortion they wish.  Fox News and other right-leaning sources will say the decision didn't overturn Roe but rather clarified the limits.  MSNBC and other left-leaning sources will say the decision overturned 50+ years of precedent and now allows states to outlaw abortion.

Yeah, this seems like exactly what we don't need, but a good bet on where its likely headed.

 

[Zow]

It would be fantastic if Congress would actually legislate instead of leaving issues up to the courts. 

Relax, Jefferson. 

 

[timschochet]

Anyway, to the point of the thread, I'll make my prediction.  SCOTUS will effectively gut Roe/Casey, allowing states to create whatever roadblocks to abortion they wish.  Fox News and other right-leaning sources will say the decision didn't overturn Roe but rather clarified the limits.  MSNBC and other left-leaning sources will say the decision overturned 50+ years of precedent and now allows states to outlaw abortion.

If that’s the case then I don’t know if suburban women will wake up. Probably not enough to change things in November. We will have to see. 
 

My only problem with your prediction is I have trouble seeing Fox News saying “well Roe wasn’t really overturned.” Seems to me they might celebrate the fact. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

It would be fantastic if Congress would actually legislate instead of leaving issues up to the courts. 

You're 50 years too late for this.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Great question. I guess it depends on the wording of the decision. Brown overturning Plessey was pretty explicit to my knowledge. At least nobody argued that Plessey was still in effect did they? 

Technically?

"Plessy is widely regarded as one of the worst decisions in U.S. Supreme Court history.[4] Despite its infamy, the decision has never been explicitly overruled"  - wikipedia

Right. Brown declining to overturn Plessy is the classic example of the Supreme Court not officially overturning the precedent that it was effectively overturning.

 

[Rich Conway]

If that’s the case then I don’t know if suburban women will wake up. Probably not enough to change things in November. We will have to see. 
 

My only problem with your prediction is I have trouble seeing Fox News saying “well Roe wasn’t really overturned.” Seems to me they might celebrate the fact. 

Maybe!  You asked for predictions, I gave you one.  Best I can do.  If I knew for sure on these things, I'd be a lot wealthier than I am today.  

 

[JIslander]

If that’s the case then I don’t know if suburban women will wake up. Probably not enough to change things in November. We will have to see. 
 

My only problem with your prediction is I have trouble seeing Fox News saying “well Roe wasn’t really overturned.” Seems to me they might celebrate the fact. 

I see pink hats.  Lots of them if SCOTUS guts.

 

[Stealthycat]

I'm going to respect the wishes of the OP and respectfully decline to address your question as it raises a different issue. 

I think its questions like that which this Supreme Court will ask, get answers to and rule accordingly whereas the one 50 years ago did not

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It would be fantastic if Congress would actually legislate instead of leaving issues up to the courts. 

Under the Commerce Clause? I don't think there's much of a chance that would be judicially upheld (given the Affordable Care Act ruling and the change in the Supreme Court's composition since then).

 

[CletiusMaximus]

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? 

One difficulty with this type of Supreme Court jurisprudence, at least for a large portion of the public, is that a "living constitution" analysis could wreak havoc in other areas.  We might have to acknowledge we live in a world where citizens are armed with powerful automatic weapons rather than one with actual militia members armed with muskets.

 

[Stealthycat]

One difficulty with this type of Supreme Court jurisprudence, at least for a large portion of the public, is that a "living constitution" analysis could wreak havoc in other areas.  We might have to acknowledge we live in a world where citizens are armed with powerful automatic weapons rather than one with actual militia members armed with muskets.

we banned those in the USA decades ago ! 

 

[JIslander]

a bald eagle egg isn't viable .... is it still a living unborn eagle and thus should be protected? in your opinion 

25% of the time, no. 

 

[Stealthycat]

25% of the time, no. 

I think Federal Law says 100% of the time

 

[JIslander]

I think Federal Law says 100% of the time

I think biologists say 25% of eagle eggs don't hatch, aren't viable. 

 

[Stealthycat]

I think biologists say 25% of eagle eggs don't hatch, aren't viable. 

I raised fowl ... and I can tell you unless the break the shell and get out themselves they're not viable. You can have one fully developed .... and breathing and everything and it can pip the shell but if it cannot get completely out on its own, its very like going to die/not viable. You rarely can help a chick hatch and it live. 

My point - viability isn't what defines alive

 

[Zow]

I think Federal Law says 100% of the time

And there are some states, mine included, that define a fetus as a potential crime victim (i.e. by creating a whole separate charge/count, acting as a sentencing enhancement, etc.). 

I understand your point. But, from a legal perspective, it's just not that simple and we're, again from a legal perspective, not looking at the same issues. In criminal law there is no competing interest such as a mother's right to reproduce and make medical decisions for her own body as there is in whether states can ban abortion. 

 

[Stealthycat]

And there are some states, mine included, that define a fetus as a potential crime victim (i.e. by creating a whole separate charge/count, acting as a sentencing enhancement, etc.). 

I understand your point. But, from a legal perspective, it's just not that simple and we're, again from a legal perspective, not looking at the same issues. In criminal law there is no competing interest such as a mother's right to reproduce and make medical decisions for her own body as there is in whether states can ban abortion. 

the Supreme Court can make it simple - I hope they will

 

[Zow]

the Supreme Court can make it simple - I hope they will

Not if they care about the constitution. 

 

[Stealthycat]

Not if they care about the constitution. 

we disagree  - and there is a big split/division in this country on abortion

the SC decided 49 years ago one way, maybe they'll decide using science/biology this time ? we'll know eventually and many people will rejoice if abortion is really restricted, and many people will not like it. Either way, if abortion is severely restricted, hundreds of thousands of babies will live because of it

if Roe is overturned, we need Biden administration/Congress to make immediate moves to help mothers/unborn, adoption etc absolutely (need to anyway)

 

[ren hoek]

When have the Democrats ever used abortion as a political issue? They should have. But unlike Republicans it’s never even discussed. 

“My body my choice,” the women’s march, fear of the GOP packing the Supreme Court and overturning Roe v. Wade?  You don’t recall this issue being used as a political wedge? 

 

[Zow]

we disagree  - and there is a big split/division in this country on abortion

the SC decided 49 years ago one way, maybe they'll decide using science/biology this time ? we'll know eventually and many people will rejoice if abortion is really restricted, and many people will not like it. Either way, if abortion is severely restricted, hundreds of thousands of babies will live because of it

if Roe is overturned, we need Biden administration/Congress to make immediate moves to help mothers/unborn, adoption etc absolutely (need to anyway)

You stated that you believe SCOTUS should "make it simple" in response to my point that the constitution probably requires the Court weigh competing interests and therefore it likely "can't be simple."

I suppose you are free to disagree, but it's like disagreeing with mathematician who asserts that 2 + 2 probably equals 4. 

 

[bigbottom]

if Roe is overturned, we need Biden administration/Congress to make immediate moves to help mothers/unborn, adoption etc absolutely (need to anyway)

Paid parental leave would be a good start. 

Edit to add: Appreciate your sentiment here. 

 

[Juxtatarot]

if Roe is overturned, we need Biden administration/Congress to make immediate moves to help mothers/unborn, adoption etc absolutely (need to anyway)

If red states want money for this from the federal government, they’d have to agree for the blue states to get money for their programs too.

This means nothing will happen.
 

 

[timschochet]

“My body my choice,” the women’s march, fear of the GOP packing the Supreme Court and overturning Roe v. Wade?  You don’t recall this issue being used as a political wedge? 

They’ve never been able to make it a wedge issue for Democrats- not in years. 

 

[Stealthycat]

You stated that you believe SCOTUS should "make it simple" in response to my point that the constitution probably requires the Court weigh competing interests and therefore it likely "can't be simple."

I suppose you are free to disagree, but it's like disagreeing with mathematician who asserts that 2 + 2 probably equals 4. 

sure it can

unborn babies need constitutional protection and right to life

simple - done

I know some people wouldn't like that, some would, and most it doesn't affect/impact anyway .... but it could be that simple

 

[JIslander]

sure it can

unborn babies need constitutional protection and right to life

simple - done

I know some people wouldn't like that, some would, and most it doesn't affect/impact anyway .... but it could be that simple

You're gonna need a bigger house to back this up...

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

sure it can

unborn babies need constitutional protection and right to life

simple - done

I know some people wouldn't like that, some would, and most it doesn't affect/impact anyway .... but it could be that simple

How does an unborn baby (or even a baby after birth) exercise a right to life?

I'm not in any way a legal scholar so take my thinking with a grain of salt, but I don't think normal usage of the word "right" in political theory fits the above.  Maybe the court argues that "natural law" should protect the most vulnerable and should trump the free exercise of the "natural rights" of the mother, but from my way of thinking this wouldn't be worded as a "right to life".   Maybe the court allows legislatures to create a "civil right" that protects the unborn baby at the expense of the exercisable "natural rights" of the mother, but while this could be labeled a "right to life" this again different in my way of thinking than how I read your post.  As in this is merely finding authorization for States (or possibly by extension Congress) to legislate limitations on the mother's rights.

@Zowis one of the legal type guys around here, and while he (and others) might nit pick my fumbling over the above concepts, I think that is in line with what he is asking.  Sure you might argue that the court [more than actually] 50 years ago claimed that the constitution in the various amendments that made up the bill of rights declared a "right to privacy" that isn't explicitly spelled out anywhere in the constitution  so why can't they find a similar "right to life" for the unborn?  Maybe they can, but how?  From what court precedent(s)?  From what reading of the constitution?  

Now this doesn't mean they cannot find a state's right to regulate abortion, just that I don't see a construct to simply declare "a right to life" (for the unborn).  

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

You stated that you believe SCOTUS should "make it simple" in response to my point that the constitution probably requires the Court weigh competing interests and therefore it likely "can't be simple."

I suppose you are free to disagree, but it's like disagreeing with mathematician who asserts that 2 + 2 probably equals 4. 

sure it can

unborn babies need constitutional protection and right to life

simple - done

I know some people wouldn't like that, some would, and most it doesn't affect/impact anyway .... but it could be that simple

I don't think proposing and ratifying a new constitutional amendment is typically all that simple.

There's nothing in the current federal constitution that forbids private civilians from murdering each other, so an amendment would be needed.

 

[FairWarning]

well to make a law, or a ruling, a cutoff has to be determined, right ?

problem is ... there is no consistency with time/dates ..... some pregnancies last 280 days, some 274 days, some 287 days .... many woman don't know exact time/day conception etc etc

But a doctor would have an informed opinion based on tests.