Roe v Wade in danger?

1246789

Comments

  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Is it that there is no minimum, or rather that there is only one age, not two (one with permission and one without)?
    A handful of states have only one age (18), and no one younger than that age can marry under any circumstances. In the states I referred to as having no minimum, the case is generally that there is the marriage age (18), a lower age at which a person can marry with parental consent (generally between 14 and 17), and then below that age (with no minimum age), a person can marry with combined parental consent and judicial approval. California omits that second step—people under 18 can marry with combined parental consent and judicial approval. I take it that in these states, the assumption is no court would approve the marriage of anyone younger than, say, 14, but the laws don’t explicitly prohibit it.

    That might be the assumption, but the reality is different [CW: child sexual abuse]:
    https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/feb/06/it-put-an-end-to-my-childhood-the-hidden-scandal-of-us-child-marriage
    Absolutely. I note that article is from 2018, and says: “In most US states, the minimum age for marriage is 18. However, in every state exceptions to this rule are possible, the most common being when parents approve and a judge gives their consent. In 25 states, there is no minimum marriage age when such an exception is made.” I believe that number is now 9 states where there is no minimum. In Florida, which the story centers on, I believe the minimum age with parental consent and judicial approval is now 17, and one partner cannot be more than two years older than the other partner.

  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Is it that there is no minimum, or rather that there is only one age, not two (one with permission and one without)?
    A handful of states have only one age (18), and no one younger than that age can marry under any circumstances. In the states I referred to as having no minimum, the case is generally that there is the marriage age (18), a lower age at which a person can marry with parental consent (generally between 14 and 17), and then below that age (with no minimum age), a person can marry with combined parental consent and judicial approval. California omits that second step—people under 18 can marry with combined parental consent and judicial approval. I take it that in these states, the assumption is no court would approve the marriage of anyone younger than, say, 14, but the laws don’t explicitly prohibit it.

    That might be the assumption, but the reality is different [CW: child sexual abuse]:
    https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/feb/06/it-put-an-end-to-my-childhood-the-hidden-scandal-of-us-child-marriage
    Absolutely. I note that article is from 2018, and says: “In most US states, the minimum age for marriage is 18. However, in every state exceptions to this rule are possible, the most common being when parents approve and a judge gives their consent. In 25 states, there is no minimum marriage age when such an exception is made.” I believe that number is now 9 states where there is no minimum. In Florida, which the story centers on, I believe the minimum age with parental consent and judicial approval is now 17, and one partner cannot be more than two years older than the other partner.

    I'm glad matters have improved somewhat. I feared that the GOP campaign
    to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen
    would extend to female children too.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    I'm glad matters have improved somewhat. I feared that the GOP campaign
    to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen
    would extend to female children too.

    There's always someone wanting to push the limits. A Tennessee legislator proposed a bill that would create a special opposite-sex-only version of marriage within that state. The bill originally omitted any lower age limit for participating in this new form of marriage contract. Some supporters of the bill claimed this was deliberate and good, but an age limit was eventually added before the bill ultimately died in committee.

    At any rate, while there's a lot of danger in Republican hostility towards women and their rights they're also in danger from poorly thought out culture war initiatives targeting other groups the GOP hates.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    At any rate, while there's a lot of danger in Republican hostility towards women and their rights they're also in danger from poorly thought out culture war initiatives targeting other groups the GOP hates.
    I never can decide whether they actually hate those groups or whether they just find them convenient scapegoats to use to achieve the goal of getting and maintaining power. Not that the end result is any different either way.

  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited May 2022
    Crœsos wrote: »
    At any rate, while there's a lot of danger in Republican hostility towards women and their rights they're also in danger from poorly thought out culture war initiatives targeting other groups the GOP hates.

    The politics of raising the minimum marriage age are more complicated than "the religious right is against it." In California, both the ACLU and Planned Parenthood opposed a bill to raise the marriage age to 18 in 2017 (the compromise law, which requires judges to look for evidence of coercion before permitting a minor to marry, was passed in 2018). Some abortion rights supporters at the time were worried that "a child-marriage ban could become a slippery slope affecting reproductive rights; California is one 11 states with no parental involvement in minors’ abortions." (Quote is from the above article.) So if minors were prevented from marrying, the logic went, people might also be persuaded to require that their parents be notified if they wanted to have an abortion, which is something that the abortion rights movement did not want to happen.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    At any rate, while there's a lot of danger in Republican hostility towards women and their rights they're also in danger from poorly thought out culture war initiatives targeting other groups the GOP hates.
    I never can decide whether they actually hate those groups or whether they just find them convenient scapegoats to use to achieve the goal of getting and maintaining power. Not that the end result is any different either way.

    The latter. If/when any of those groups become key to gaining political power they'll switch to loving them in a heartbeat.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Another procedure that will be put into jeopardy here in the US will be Invitro Fertilization (IVF). In IVF the woman is given hormones which will release a number of eggs at once. The eggs are then fertilized and frozen until the woman chooses to carry one to term. Even then, several fertilized eggs are inserted in the uterus in hopes at least one will attach to the uterus. Sometimes they all do. Then the question arises do you carry all of them to term or abort a number of them?

    But the point is, in Alito's draft, he would grant every fertilized egg personhood. So what happens to fertilized eggs that are frozen? In theory, they can last indefinitely but should they?

    Even in normal conception anywhere from a third to half of fertilized eggs do not implant. What about those eggs? On top of that there are the miscarries. No one wants to see that but they do happen. What will happen then? Can the woman be charged with something?
    This whole process is becoming so draconian.

  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    But the point is, in Alito's draft, he would grant every fertilized egg personhood. So what happens to fertilized eggs that are frozen? In theory, they can last indefinitely but should they?

    I don't think Alito's draft grants personhood to human embryos and fetuses. It removes any recognition of a right to an abortion and returns the country to the situation before Roe when each state could choose to ban abortion outright or permit it with whatever restrictions the state decides on. That doesn't prevent the justices signing onto this decision from recognizing fetal personhood or some other fetal right to life in a future case, though, probably starting with a case addressing the later stages of pregnancy.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Another procedure that will be put into jeopardy here in the US will be Invitro Fertilization (IVF). In IVF the woman is given hormones which will release a number of eggs at once. The eggs are then fertilized and frozen until the woman chooses to carry one to term. Even then, several fertilized eggs are inserted in the uterus in hopes at least one will attach to the uterus. Sometimes they all do. Then the question arises do you carry all of them to term or abort a number of them?

    But the point is, in Alito's draft, he would grant every fertilized egg personhood. So what happens to fertilized eggs that are frozen? In theory, they can last indefinitely but should they?

    Even in normal conception anywhere from a third to half of fertilized eggs do not implant. What about those eggs? On top of that there are the miscarries. No one wants to see that but they do happen. What will happen then? Can the woman be charged with something?
    This whole process is becoming so draconian.

    Small point of order here. The implanting of multiple embryos is no longer standard procedure. One or two nowadays.

    AFZ
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    But the point is, in Alito's draft, he would grant every fertilized egg personhood.
    As has been pointed out, no he doesn’t.

    Not that fetal personhood isn’t on the agenda for some on the Right.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    At any rate, while there's a lot of danger in Republican hostility towards women and their rights they're also in danger from poorly thought out culture war initiatives targeting other groups the GOP hates.
    I never can decide whether they actually hate those groups or whether they just find them convenient scapegoats to use to achieve the goal of getting and maintaining power. Not that the end result is any different either way.

    The latter. If/when any of those groups become key to gaining political power they'll switch to loving them in a heartbeat.

    See Harry Truman quoting the Bible to friends in defense of Black inferiority, and then integrating the military.

    Though, like Truman, I think guys like that usually start out sincerely believing their own bigotry, simply 'cuz that's where they come from. The temptationa of power are usually pretty overwhelming, however.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    But the point is, in Alito's draft, he would grant every fertilized egg personhood. So what happens to fertilized eggs that are frozen? In theory, they can last indefinitely but should they?
    I don't think Alito's draft grants personhood to human embryos and fetuses. It removes any recognition of a right to an abortion and returns the country to the situation before Roe when each state could choose to ban abortion outright or permit it with whatever restrictions the state decides on. That doesn't prevent the justices signing onto this decision from recognizing fetal personhood or some other fetal right to life in a future case, though, probably starting with a case addressing the later stages of pregnancy.

    Alito fairly cagily states that the court is returning the question of abortion to "legislative bodies" (p. 61), which does not preclude federal legislation on this matter. As I noted earlier, it seems likely that the next Republican trifecta will pass some kind of national abortion ban. At any rate, the post-Roe legal landscape looks like it will be much different (and worse) than the pre-Roe status quo.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    My mistake. I should have said Alito's draft could allow states to grant fetal personhood to the unborn. Nonetheless, if states do that IVF procedures would be in danger.
  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    For interest: 'Gillick competence ' hasn't been used in the NHS as the usual term for years. Instead the term 'Fraser competence ' is used. I believe this is because Mrs Gillick strongly objected to her name being used in this context.
  • I think they are a bit different, but the anti-trans groups are trying to rescind them.
  • Leorning CnihtLeorning Cniht Shipmate
    edited May 2022
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    For interest: 'Gillick competence ' hasn't been used in the NHS as the usual term for years. Instead the term 'Fraser competence ' is used. I believe this is because Mrs Gillick strongly objected to her name being used in this context.

    The Fraser guidelines are specifically about contraception and sexual health care for children, whereas Gillick is a more general rule.

    You may find this article to be of interest. The idea that Victoria Gillick is unhappy with the use of her name in this context appears to be a myth.
  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    Merry Vole wrote: »
    For interest: 'Gillick competence ' hasn't been used in the NHS as the usual term for years. Instead the term 'Fraser competence ' is used. I believe this is because Mrs Gillick strongly objected to her name being used in this context.

    The Fraser guidelines are specifically about contraception and sexual health care for children, whereas Gillick is a more general rule.

    You may find this article to be of interest. The idea that Victoria Gillick is unhappy with the use of her name in this context appears to be a myth.

    Thank you. I knew that Lord Fraser was one of the Law Lords who was responsible for the judgement on the Gillick case. I now realise that the 2 phrases are commonly ,but erroneously, used interchangeably. I stand corrected.
  • I haven't been following this thread, but this caught my eye just now on the UK's Guardian website:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/24/scotus-roe-wade-decision-what-happens-next

    A step backwards towards the Dark Ages?

    Lord have mercy on all those affected...
  • MaryLouiseMaryLouise Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    edited June 2022
    Roe vs Wade overturned. Unbelievable.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    All too believable. This is the culmination of a forty year plot to capture the federal judiciary in order to rule without having popular support.

    It seems likely that a post-Roe world will not be the same as the pre-Roe world. In many key ways it will be worse.
  • Not being American, I don't know how far they will go, or can go. I read a journo saying the whole of the postwar progressive legislation can be undone now. True?
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Not being American, I don't know how far they will go, or can go. I read a journo saying the whole of the postwar progressive legislation can be undone now. True?

    (AIUI) Once a far right court no longer considers past precedents to be binding almost everything not explicitly protected by an amendment is up for grabs - school integration, anti-miscegenation, sodomy laws, Jim Crow, everything.
  • This is leading to civil war, which I suppose some want, no names, no packdrill.
  • snowflakesnowflake Shipmate
    As Crœsos says, it is indeed all too believable. God help us all.
  • US Shipmates are far better placed to comment on that, but this decision will surely lead to at least some civil unrest, no?

    Frightening stuff, whatever.
  • From the Guardian's live blog - AIUI, the author of this is the Attorney General of Missouri, Eric Schmitt:

    Following the SCOTUS ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, Missouri has just become the first in the country to effectively end abortion with our AG opinion signed moments ago. This is a monumental day for the sanctity of life.

    My italics.
    :fearful:
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Not being American, I don't know how far they will go, or can go. I read a journo saying the whole of the postwar progressive legislation can be undone now. True?

    Not quite. Remember that Roe was a judicial precedent, not a piece of legislation. However the Supreme Court has indicated its willingness to reverse any past precedent based on the concept of individual rights, and to do so on fairly spurious grounds. (See yesterday's ruling in New York Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen [PDF] for an example of just how spurious.)

    But yes, any right protected by the "magnificent seven" Warren Court precedents (Brown, Loving, Griswold, Reynolds, Gideon, Miranda, and Roe) is probably in the crosshairs of the current court.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    From the Guardian's live blog - AIUI, the author of this is the Attorney General of Missouri, Eric Schmitt:

    Following the SCOTUS ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, Missouri has just become the first in the country to effectively end abortion with our AG opinion signed moments ago. This is a monumental day for the sanctity of life.

    My italics.
    :fearful:

    So presumably in order to preserve the sanctity of life they will now be banning guns and the death penalty?
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    From the Guardian's live blog - AIUI, the author of this is the Attorney General of Missouri, Eric Schmitt:

    Following the SCOTUS ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, Missouri has just become the first in the country to effectively end abortion with our AG opinion signed moments ago. This is a monumental day for the sanctity of life.

    My italics.
    :fearful:

    So presumably in order to preserve the sanctity of life they will now be banning guns and the death penalty?

    Yes, I wondered that, too. Somehow I doubt it...
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Not being American, I don't know how far they will go, or can go. I read a journo saying the whole of the postwar progressive legislation can be undone now. True?

    Not quite. Remember that Roe was a judicial precedent, not a piece of legislation. However the Supreme Court has indicated its willingness to reverse any past precedent based on the concept of individual rights, and to do so on fairly spurious grounds. (See yesterday's ruling in New York Pistol & Rifle Association v. Bruen [PDF] for an example of just how spurious.)

    But yes, any right protected by the "magnificent seven" Warren Court precedents (Brown, Loving, Griswold, Reynolds, Gideon, Miranda, and Roe) is probably in the crosshairs of the current court.

    Thanks @Crœsos for the clarification.
  • North East QuineNorth East Quine Purgatory Host
    American shipmates - will this mean widespread backstreet abortions, or is the USA about to start building orphanages?
  • BoogieBoogie Heaven Host
    I recently said “Don’t be born a woman in Afghanistan”.

    Now I add “Don’t be born a woman in the USA”.

    😢😢
  • Dunno about orphanages, but surely there will be an increase in (a) backstreet - presumably illegal - abortions, and (b) traffic to States which do allow abortions, if those affected can afford it...
    Boogie wrote: »
    I recently said “Don’t be born a woman in Afghanistan”.

    Now I add “Don’t be born a woman in the USA”.

    😢😢

    This.
  • The next step, I assume, is to delegitimize the SC. Not sure how, but I bet it happens.
  • A thought - if someone travels to a State where abortions are legal, will she be liable to prosecution when she returns to her home State?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited June 2022
    Dunno about orphanages, but surely there will be an increase in (a) backstreet - presumably illegal - abortions, and (b) traffic to States which do allow abortions, if those affected can afford it...

    Well, until the next Republican federal trifecta, at which point I expect them to try to pass some kind of national abortion ban. Their commitment to federalism is situational at best.
    The next step, I assume, is to delegitimize the SC. Not sure how, but I bet it happens.

    The Supreme Court is not owed any fixed amount of legitimacy in the public mind. From the joint dissent in Dobbs v. Jackson [PDF] (p. 207):
    They [ ed: O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter ] knew that “the legitimacy of the Court [is] earned over time.” Id., at 868. They also would have recognized that it can be destroyed much more quickly. They worked hard to avert that outcome in Casey. The American public, they thought, should never conclude that its constitutional protections hung by a thread — that a new majority, adhering to a new “doctrinal school,” could “by dint of numbers” alone expunge their rights. Id., at 864. It is hard — no, it is impossible — to conclude that anything else has happened here.

    Being insulated from public opinion is not the same as being immune to it. The political branches have checks available against the court, if only they choose to use them.
    A thought - if someone travels to a State where abortions are legal, will she be liable to prosecution when she returns to her home State?

    Many states are exploring this as a legal strategy, not for women who get abortions (at least not yet) but for anyone who aids and abets a woman crossing state lines to get an abortion. Think of it as the Fugitive Uterus Act.
  • US Shipmates are far better placed to comment on that, but this decision will surely lead to at least some civil unrest, no?
    My guess is that it will take a little time for the implications to sink in.

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited June 2022
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    US Shipmates are far better placed to comment on that, but this decision will surely lead to at least some civil unrest, no?
    My guess is that it will take a little time for the implications to sink in.

    Yes, fair enough - perhaps I should have added in due course...

    As @Crœsos has also implied, it's early days yet, and there are more moves to be made - presumably both for and against.

    However, some of us on this side of the Pond are looking on with horror, although we aren't directly affected.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    But yes, any right protected by the "magnificent seven" Warren Court precedents (Brown, Loving, Griswold, Reynolds, Gideon, Miranda, and Roe) is probably in the crosshairs of the current court.
    While they are at it, maybe they should re-think Marbury v. Madison which concluded that the U.S. Supreme Court had the power to declare a law unconstitutional--even though the Constitution itself says no such thing. That would allow all sorts of laws to be passed without having to worry about those pesky "rights" things.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Georgia is making abortion a capital offence.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Opinion of the Court in Dobbs v. Jackson, p. 79.
    Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Post, at 4–5, 26–27, n. 8. But we have stated unequivocally that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

    Concurrence of Clarence Thomas in Dobbs v. Jackson, p. 119:
    For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.

    Yeah, they're coming for everything.
  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    At least 17 US states are bringing in a total or near-total ban on abortion, many with no exceptions for rape or incest - NY Times.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Opinion of the Court in Dobbs v. Jackson, p. 79.
    Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Post, at 4–5, 26–27, n. 8. But we have stated unequivocally that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

    Concurrence of Clarence Thomas in Dobbs v. Jackson, p. 119:
    For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.

    Yeah, they're coming for everything.
    I’ll take small comfort in the fact that no one joined Thomas’s concurrence where he said all those decisions need to be revisited, while the majority joined in Alito’s opinion stating that other precedents not involving abortion are not cast in doubt.

    Yeah, I know. I’m grasping at straws to take whatever comfort I can today. Tomorrow is soon enough for reality.

  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    Pomona wrote: »
    Georgia is making abortion a capital offence.

    Fucking hell.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Opinion of the Court in Dobbs v. Jackson, p. 79.
    Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Post, at 4–5, 26–27, n. 8. But we have stated unequivocally that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

    Concurrence of Clarence Thomas in Dobbs v. Jackson, p. 119:
    For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.

    Yeah, they're coming for everything.
    I’ll take small comfort in the fact that no one joined Thomas’s concurrence where he said all those decisions need to be revisited, while the majority joined in Alito’s opinion stating that other precedents not involving abortion are not cast in doubt.

    Didn't some of them previously say that Roe vs Wade was settled legal precedent?
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Opinion of the Court in Dobbs v. Jackson, p. 79.
    Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Post, at 4–5, 26–27, n. 8. But we have stated unequivocally that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

    Concurrence of Clarence Thomas in Dobbs v. Jackson, p. 119:
    For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.

    Yeah, they're coming for everything.
    I’ll take small comfort in the fact that no one joined Thomas’s concurrence where he said all those decisions need to be revisited, while the majority joined in Alito’s opinion stating that other precedents not involving abortion are not cast in doubt.

    Didn't some of them previously say that Roe vs Wade was settled legal precedent?
    Yeah, like I said, grasping at straws for today.

  • PomonaPomona Shipmate
    Also a reminder that abortion is permitted in Afghanistan due to foetal abnormality or risk to the mother's health - women literally have more abortion rights under the Taliban than they do in Louisiana or Texas now.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Didn't some of them previously say that Roe vs Wade was settled legal precedent?

    Blogger Paul Campos compiled statements to that effect by Justices Roberts, Kavanaugh, not!Garland, and Thomas during their respective confirmation hearings.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    Georgia is making abortion a capital offence.

    Fucking hell.

    Indeed, but can this be unpacked, please?

    Is it the person having the abortion who is to be put to death, or the person performing the abortion?

    Welcome to Gilead...
  • From President Biden:

    "The court has done what it has never done done before: expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans,” Biden said in a speech from the White House. “It’s a sad day for the court and for the country. Now with Roe gone, let’s be very clear, the health and life of women in this nation are now at risk.”
Sign In or Register to comment.