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 would expand that to include to the 1930's cases that underpinned the New Deal and ended the Lochner Era. The only reason NLRA vs. Jones & Loughlin Steel still standsis because the NLRA has been effectively gutted already through a thousand cuts rather than a single blow.
Speaking as a leftie, my surprise is why the Left is surprised by such tactics. The Right reacted to the "Magnificent 7" by assimilating the tactic of reform by litigation and appropriating it to its own ends. Turnabout is fair play.
We must also remember that the"Magnificent 7" cases came about as the Left felt legislative reform was a failure; they could not get the same ends passed through legislative means.
Again, this issue goes back to the New Deal. The Court-Packing Plan and the rise of the Conservative Coalition enabled the Right to control enough veto points in either house of Congress or the Presidency to stymie reform legislation of any sort. The sorry history of US Labor Law Reform after 1950 or the winding road to the Affordable Care Act are indicative of this multi-decade legislative sclerosis. And so the Left tried a different tack, now that hss been blocked too.
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.
They lied to get on the court. They are lying now.
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.
They lied to get on the court. They are lying now.
Oh yeah. Again, grasping at straws to get through the day.
"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.”
But he promised to codify abortion rights....and he didn't do that. Obama could have codified abortion rights but literally said they were not a priority for him. Those of us who have been watching the US Religious Right have seen this coming for years and nobody believed us.
"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.”
But he promised to codify abortion rights....and he didn't do that. Obama could have codified abortion rights but literally said they were not a priority for him. Those of us who have been watching the US Religious Right have seen this coming for years and nobody believed us.
Scenario: Obama codifies abortion-rights, which galvanizes anti-choicers to go to the polls, with no concurrent galvanization of pro-choicers, because the pro-choicers don't perceive a crisis.
Not saying that's absolutely what would have happened, but such considerations might have played a role in the decision not to go ahead with codification.
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.
They lied to get on the court. They are lying now.
Oh yeah. Again, grasping at straws to get through the day.
I don't know if you've yet had the opportunity (assuming you have the will) to read the judgments. My understanding is that the Sup Ct ruled against the uniform federal legislation, saying that the legislation went beyond federal power; that leaves the individual States free to legislate on the topic themselves. Is that the position please?
link and discussion of transphobic source - please do not discuss on this thread - L
In view of the comments above about the case of the rape survivor disturbed by the presence of a supposed trans woman in the support group, I have read the source material. The Rape Crisis organisation provides groups for men, mixed gtoups, trans and non-binary groups and supposed women's groups. In the case mentioned, a person presenting as male was in the group. As I recall, this person was dressed as a male, sat as a male, and dominated the group as a male. When the woman asked about single sex provision, she was told they did not provide that, and that the presence of trans women added value to the therapy. There is no single sex provision anywhere in the county as it holds to this principle, so when she was advised to seek another local service, it was not done in good faith. The rape survivor concerned has written that she supports trans people, that they have a right to exist, that they have a right to access support, so is not a transphobe. She had just wanted to be supported by other people with the same experiences as she had without being stared at by an obvious male. The 1:1 support she was offered involved a wait for 2 years.
Make your own minds up. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10249633/Rape-victim-forced-quit-therapy-sessions-feels-threatened-6ft-trans-woman.html
I don't like linking to the DM, but both sides here need knowing. I try to keep out of this subject, it being too divisive, and tangled up with personal experiences, but this is not, I think, a good case to build an argument about UK anti-trans behaviours on.
reply within rules to discussion of transphobic source but hidden to stop replies - L
OK I have read that, and it is not clear to me the trans person was presenting a
s male. They were wearing trousers and a sweatshirt - like millions of women do all the time. They were tall and had a deep voice, I am absolutely sure given the tone of the article if she’d had a beard it would have been mentioned.
So basically, the writer is arguing said woman was insufficiently femme. I’d fall foul of that clothes policing - I am a cis gendered woman.
OK I have read that, and it is not clear to me the trans person was presenting as male. They were wearing trousers and a sweatshirt - like millions of women do all the time. They were tall and had a deep voice, I am absolutely sure given the tone of the article if she’d had a beard it would have been mentioned.
So basically, the writer is arguing said woman was insufficiently femme. I’d fall foul of that clothes policing - I am a cis gendered woman.
So would my wife - she gets mis-gendered all the time (including recently by airport security who inadvertently groped her after call her "sir"). Transphobia and the policing of gender presentation are very close cousins.
Hello,
We earlier had some discussion of the links between transphobes and opposing abortion rights but in view of the shocking news I think that discussion of linkage would have to go to a separate thread now.
Penny S - rules are different in Epiphanies, please check our guidelines. The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source for discussing this issue or any issue which involves groups that newspaper targets. Please don't link to it or use it here. Thanks.
Gender policing would be a good topic for its own thread though.
Please reword to avoid putting words/attitudes into the mouths of others
I posted some weeks ago but have not been following this thread as I'm not from the US. However, could I ask shipmates something about this news as it was reported here, which from the way this issue has been discussed on the Ship and reported elsewhere hitherto, is quite puzzling.
The reports showed film of vehement supporters/protesters for both sides (depending on which way the result was going to go) outside a building which I assume is the US Supreme Court, all shouting, waving banners etc.
The decision had just been announced. So the anti-abortion protesters were jubilant and the right to choose ones desolate and angry. Both groups of supporters/protesters had plenty to say and were happy to express their views to the camera.
Now, my question. Both groups of supporters/protesters were equally fervent. They also appeared to be virtually entirely female. I'd have expected this to be true for the right to choose ones, but it was also true of the anti-abortion ones. Yet hitherto, the anti-abortion side has been represented, here and elsewhere, as the forces of repressive patriarchy, dogmatic male preachers and male judges trying to control women's bodies.
This can't be entirely true. Can somebody from the US who knows what they are talking about
and do so without shouting and rhetoric,
explain this to me?
( please do not use pre-emptively belittling
framing like this - L )
One other question. I haven't read the decision, but if its core is that this is not a constitutional matter and so one which each state can decide for itself, doesn't that mean that neither the Supreme Court nor the Federal government can or will intervene if a more liberal state or one that spots a commercial opportunity, relaxes its law on the subject? And wouldn't the constitutional right to interstate trade preclude more restrictive states preventing their residents of availing themselves of such facilities?
Enoch, on reflection the first part of your post seems to be setting up a deliberately un-nuanced straw man argument. This is not what this board is about. There are people here who've had abortions or who while being pro-life have faced terrible decisions about whether to abort or not or who now potentially face forced-birth, they are not here to play debating games with. If you sincerely want to ask why there are anti-abortion women please reword your post to ask without your own characterisation of what other people think.
Louise
Epiphanies Host
"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.”
But he promised to codify abortion rights....and he didn't do that.
Because he doesn’t have the power to do that. Presidents have no power to enact or codify laws, beyond using their influence to get Congress to pass bills and then signing those bills into law.
What he promised to do was to “work to codify Roe v. Wade.” All he can do is try to get Congress to codify Roe. But as long as the Senate rules require a 60% vote for cloture for a bill to proceed—and, no, Biden hasn’t supported getting rid of the filibuster or tried to convince Democratic senators like Manchin or Sinema to do that—there’s no chance of that happening.
I don't know if you've yet had the opportunity (assuming you have the will) to read the judgments. My understanding is that the Sup Ct ruled against the uniform federal legislation, saying that the legislation went beyond federal power; that leaves the individual States free to legislate on the topic themselves. Is that the position please?
I have only read the syllabus and otherwise skimmed the opinions (that’s all I’ve had the will to do so far), but no, there was no uniform federal legislation for the Court to rule against. What there was on a federal level was the decision in Roe, and the later decision in Casey, which held that the US Constitution prohibits states from banning abortion, at least in the first and second trimesters. (That’s generally speaking; the framework was a bit more detailed.)
The Court was considering a Mississippi law that essentially prohibited abortion after 15 weeks. This was a law Mississippi enacted with the intent to try to challenge or undercut Roe.
The lower courts had enjoined enforcement of the law on the grounds that it conflicted with Roe. SCOTUS has now overruled Roe on the grounds that “[t]he Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion” and that the authority to regulate (and presumably not regulate) abortion lies with “the people and their elected representatives.”
So now it appears we’ll deal with a state-by-state situation, with some states protecting a woman’s right to choose, and other states totally banning abortion and even trying to regulate the ability to go to another state to obtain an abortion, and things all in between.
One other question. I haven't read the decision, but if its core is that this is not a constitutional matter and so one which each state can decide for itself, doesn't that mean that neither the Supreme Court nor the Federal government can or will intervene if a more liberal state or one that spots a commercial opportunity, relaxes its law on the subject? And wouldn't the constitutional right to interstate trade preclude more restrictive states preventing their residents of availing themselves of such facilities?
Enoch, I don't think your wording is quite right. The start to your first sentence would make more sense as " but if its core is that this is not a power given to the federal government and so it is one where each state must decide for itself should it wish to legislate". The second part raises a question which Nick Tamen would be much better qualified than I to answer, but given the constitutional similarities to the Aust experience, I'd say that the answer is that unless it is a federal matter, the Federal government has no power. The Supreme Court may still have a role, though - for example, a party dissatisfied with the decision of the ultimate appellate court of a State may seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. It would then be up to the Supreme Court to determine whether any other party should be given leave to intervene. Does that make sense?
The Supreme Court may still have a role, though - for example, a party dissatisfied with the decision of the ultimate appellate court of a State may seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Not necessarily. If the decision of the ultimate appellate court of a state is based only on state law or interprets only the state constitution, there is no appeal to SCOTUS, as the state court is the final authority on the interpretation of state law and of the state constitution. SCOTUS could only have a role if there is an argument that the state court decision somehow violates or is inconsistent with controlling federal law or the federal Constitution.
Beyond that, I think the interstate commerce angle is an interesting one, but I wouldn’t bet on it carrying the day, especially with these justices. It’s not really a constitutional right to interstate trade; rather it’s the ability of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, and these days the Court seems to limit that to purely economic activity. Perhaps there was some confusion with the right to travel/move between states and the Privileges and Immunities Clause?
Thank you for that - rather different to here where the High Court has power to grant leave/special leave to appeal in the circumstances in your first paragraph. I suppose that a possible source for the difference is that in pre-Federation days, there could be an appeal by leave/special leave from State Supreme Court to the Privy Council, and the High Court took on the role of the Privy Council. The US experience appears to have been very different.
Apologies if this point has been raised previously, but what is the stance of the Roman Catholic Church in the US on this decision?
I appreciate that the RCC is by no means monolithic, and that there may well be widely divergent views and opinions, but I just wondered what the official line might be.
Come to think of it, what are the views of other denominations? I wouldn't be surprised if even some of the more conservative churches had qualms about it all...
My apologies @Louise. I don't quite 'get' Epiphanies which is why I tend not to post on it.
As, so far as I know, there isn't another relevant thread on this topic in Purgatory or Hell to post this sort of question on, rather than try to re-post without offending the Epiphany rules, is there someone who can message me off board with an answer to my question?
I wonder how abortion pills will survive? I guess they are available online, and then by post, but presumably anti-abortion states will be monitoring this. Last night, I felt sick and depressed over the ruling, the policing of women's bodies intensifies. Billie Eilish had a rant about it at Glasto.
I don't know if you've yet had the opportunity (assuming you have the will) to read the judgments. My understanding is that the Sup Ct ruled against the uniform federal legislation, saying that the legislation went beyond federal power; that leaves the individual States free to legislate on the topic themselves. Is that the position please?
No. As pointed out Roe v. Wade was not legislation, federal or otherwise, but a judicial precedent holding that, as a Constitutional matter, the decision to end a pregnancy was (at least in early stages) a matter to be decided by the person who was pregnant, not the state or federal government.
Under Dobbs, the matter is for the moment a subject for state legislation. There is nothing, however, which would prevent federal legislation establishing a national standard on this. In fact, Kavanaugh's concurrence hints broadly in this direction (p. 133):
After today’s decision, the nine Members of this Court will no longer decide the basic legality of pre-viability abortion for all 330 million Americans. That issue will be resolved by the people and their representatives in the democratic process in the States or Congress.
As a practical matter, the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court has given up all pretense of following precedent or being consistent (although I guess "enact the current agenda of the Republican party" is a form of consistency). In other words, any federal legislation codifying the ability to choose an abortion will be ruled unconstitutional and any federal law banning or restricting abortion will be held to be Constitutional by the current Supreme Court.
I wonder how abortion pills will survive? I guess they are available online, and then by post, but presumably anti-abortion states will be monitoring this. Last night, I felt sick and depressed over the ruling, the policing of women's bodies intensifies. Billie Eilish had a rant about it at Glasto.
Theoretically the ability to regulate inter-state commerce is a federal power (with the exception of "intoxicating liquors" under the terms of the Twenty-First Amendment). I wouldn't count on that too much, though. The current SCOTUS isn't too troubled by consistency and legal conservatives have been angling for a narrowed interpretation of the commerce clause for a very long time.
Thank you for that - rather different to here where the High Court has power to grant leave/special leave to appeal in the circumstances in your first paragraph. I suppose that a possible source for the difference is that in pre-Federation days, there could be an appeal by leave/special leave from State Supreme Court to the Privy Council, and the High Court took on the role of the Privy Council. The US experience appears to have been very different.
It came from Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has plenary appellate jurisdiction and that carried over to Australia, along with a number of other items.
In the long run (at least I hope) the GOP and the Christian conservative movement may find themselves in the position of the dog that caught the schoolbus--i.e., crushed under the wheels. But that's small comfort for the next few years or decades.
In the long run (at least I hope) the GOP and the Christian conservative movement may find themselves in the position of the dog that caught the schoolbus--i.e., crushed under the wheels. But that's small comfort for the next few years or decades.
What concerns me is that through gerrymandering and packing the courts, Republicans have carefully made it close to impossible for voters to change this decision peacefully through our usual democratic methods. I'm worried this decision is going to accelerate our descent into making political decisions through violence instead - the white nationalists are already doing it, and if the rest of the public begins to feel that they have no peaceful avenue to make change...?
A line of thought that is most disturbing. Canada lived through American instability once; we don't want to do so again.
I am sometimes question why the US Right can't seem to fathom that political representation and dialogue is the continuous price of avoiding violence and revolution. Having too many people permanently "outside the system" threatens the system itself.
A line of thought that is most disturbing. Canada lived through American instability once; we don't want to do so again.
I am sometimes question why the US Right can't seem to fathom that political representation and dialogue is the continuous price of avoiding violence and revolution. Having too many people permanently "outside the system" threatens the system itself.
Canada’s crisis was about identity, but not about religion. When you confound identity with divine will—which is the case with modern American evangelicalism, essentially a white (and originally Southern and rural) identity movement—anything short of total compliance is unacceptable.
A line of thought that is most disturbing. Canada lived through American instability once; we don't want to do so again.
I am sometimes question why the US Right can't seem to fathom that political representation and dialogue is the continuous price of avoiding violence and revolution. Having too many people permanently "outside the system" threatens the system itself.
Canada’s crisis was about identity, but not about religion.
Eh, the two things tended to overlap alot of the time. I know older people who went to French convent schools in Manitoba(home of the infamous School Question) in the 1940s or so, and when the inspector dropped by, they had to hide their catechism books.
Granted, nowadays whether you like or dislike the French and/or Quebec usually has little to do with religion, and I used to know Alberta Catholics who were as francophobic as any Orangeman.
Peter C. Newman once wrote that Pierre Trudeau's public attacks on Meech Lake and Charlottetown pandered to anti-Quebec and anti-Catholic sentiment, but I think Newman was probably exaggerating the extent of the latter.
But surely the ability to give medical consent comes before the age of majority anyway, how else would minors be able to access things like birth control? In the UK you are no longer a minor at 16, but can give medical consent without parental consent at 14 I believe - it might be earlier. At least, you can legally be living independently (as in, not in foster care even if homeless or kicked out of your home) from the age of 16 which seems like not being a minor to me.
In the UK majority is assumed at 18. This is now the minimum age at which you may legally marry and has, since 1969 been the age at which you can legally borrow money or sign a contract that is binding. Pre 1969 is was 21.
I don't know if there are legal exclusions that apply to the Government or medical issues. ISTR a certain Mrs Gillick who fought such things way back in the 1970's Mrs M was involved in the sense of having once nursed Mrs G through a pregnancy.
But surely the ability to give medical consent comes before the age of majority anyway, how else would minors be able to access things like birth control? In the UK you are no longer a minor at 16, but can give medical consent without parental consent at 14 I believe - it might be earlier. At least, you can legally be living independently (as in, not in foster care even if homeless or kicked out of your home) from the age of 16 which seems like not being a minor to me.
In the UK majority is assumed at 18. This is now the minimum age at which you may legally marry
Nothing directly to do with Roe v Wade, but I checked Google to see when abortion was made legal in the UK - 1968, following the Abortion Act of October 1967.
I recall the publicity at the time (I was in my late teens), but don't remember if there was any opposition from the branch of the C of E in which I then was - Prayer Book Evangelical.
Illegal abortions were not unknown, of course, and in earlier years (around 1914) a certain Anglican priest - who was also an episcopus vagans - was imprisoned for supplying abortifacients. I don't know details of the case, but he may have been trying to help (albeit dangerously and illegally) young women of his London slum parish.
No doubt such things will become more common in parts of the US.
Nothing directly to do with Roe v Wade, but I checked Google to see when abortion was made legal in the UK - 1968, following the Abortion Act of October 1967.
I recall the publicity at the time (I was in my late teens), but don't remember if there was any opposition from the branch of the C of E in which I then was - Prayer Book Evangelical.
Illegal abortions were not unknown, of course, and in earlier years (around 1914) a certain Anglican priest - who was also an episcopus vagans - was imprisoned for supplying abortifacients. I don't know details of the case, but he may have been trying to help (albeit dangerously and illegally) young women of his London slum parish.
No doubt such things will become more common in parts of the US.
Fortunately, nowadays at least it is much safer to do a DIY abortion - especially if you have access to pills in order to induce a medical abortion (ie not surgical), which is done at home in the UK for early legal abortions anyway. Given that in many states abortion access has already been severely curtailed for a long time, I daresay that providers of abortion pills are already doing this. Certainly they were in Ireland before legalisation there.
Edited to add that abortion pills are only suitable in the early stages of pregnancy, they can't be used for all abortions - but when they are suitable, it's a very easy and low-risk abortion that can easily be done at home.
Further to the point made by Croesos about interstate commerce, and the sending of abortion pills, a further problem is that if anything goes wrong, the woman taking the pills would have to go to hospital, or a doctor, when presumably the police would be informed. What an amazing situation where a private medical matter is policed, quite literally. If this doesn't show a hatred of women, it gets damn close.
The sheer lunacy would be compounded even further IYSWIM, should the person convicted have the misfortune to be in a State (perhaps Georgia?) where they could be put to death for having an abortion...
Nothing directly to do with Roe v Wade, but I checked Google to see when abortion was made legal in the UK - 1968, following the Abortion Act of October 1967.
Abortion carried out by a doctor was generally legal in Scotland prior to 1967, but the Act tidied up the law here, which was piecemeal prior to that.
Abortions were more difficult to obtain in Glasgow than Aberdeen, for example, because a higher percentage of doctors in Glasgow would refuse to carry out an abortion. The typical abortion prior to 1967 would be provided to a married woman who was over, or approaching, 40, already had at least three children, and whose health was expected to be compromised by a further pregnancy. Generally, the woman would be sterilised at the same time.
I had a lecture on abortion as part of my law degree around 1984. The lecturer was a doctor who had treated women who had had back street abortions, and was passionately in favour of safe, legal, abortions. It's not a lecture I will ever forget.
I believe a lot of the routes used to send trans people DIY HRT in the mail are being utilised for also sending abortion pills and Plan B (what we call the morning-after pill or emergency contraception in the UK) in the mail - Plan B is legal in the US but in some areas can be difficult to access as pharmacists can refuse sale, and objection to it as an abortifacent (it is not btw) is more common amongst US Evangelicals than in the UK where it is generally just a problem for Catholics. Even without Griswold being overturned, reliable contraception can be very difficult to access in some parts of the US especially for young people - don't forget that abstinence-only sex ed policies also cover not providing condoms or information on contraception in schools. Some US health insurance plans also don't cover contraception - this is actually one of Planned Parenthood's main activities.
The Universalist Unitarians are somewhat famous for a really excellent sex ed programme in the US, especially compared to churches as a whole - I wonder if other churches and other religious groups (eg Reform Jewish congregations) could step up and provide similar along with contraception and abortion funds. I think the pro-choice religious groups really have to step up and actively combat anti-abortion groups with material action as well as statements. Native rights are also under threat as their recognition as sovereign nations means they legally can provide abortion services even in states that have banned it, and that idea being suggested - usually by white people, not by the actual Native communities - is seen by many abortion opponents as an excuse to decimate Native rights. Native women experience an extremely high rate of rape and sexual violence as well as murder and kidnap, as do First Nations women across the border in Canada. Given the historic role that the Church has played in the genocide of Indigenous peoples in the Americas including in the US, protecting Indigenous women and their abortion rights is particularly important imo.
Thanks @North East Quine. Scotland seems to have been ahead of England, a not unusual occurrence...
Meanwhile, a further step towards the Republic of Gilead is provided by Mary Miller, who, endorsed and supported by someone she calls *President* Trump, calls the overturning of Roe v Wade *a victory for white life*:
I think it's important to note amongst the references to Gilead that The Handmaid's Tale tells the story of a dystopian future for white women that Black and Indigenous women in the US have already been experiencing. This isn't a criticism of you @Bishops Finger or others making the reference, just that it's worth remembering how old and real the attack on Black and Indigenous women (and others who aren't white women) is and how it's important to not remove that from the narrative.
The Quiverfull and Dominionist movements have been explicit about being a white supremacist fertility cult for *decades*. I remember talking about the danger from Dominionists in the US on the Old Ship only for them to be dismissed as a minor crank group with no real political influence. Now they're in the Supreme Court. They and their children have been wearing t-shirts promising that Roe vs Wade will not outlive them for years and years but nobody took them seriously.
Come to think of it, what are the views of other denominations? I wouldn't be surprised if even some of the more conservative churches had qualms about it all...
TEC is, of course, strongly opposed to this decision.
The Universalist Unitarians are somewhat famous for a really excellent sex ed programme in the US, especially compared to churches as a whole - I wonder if other churches and other religious groups (eg Reform Jewish congregations) could step up and provide similar along with contraception and abortion funds.
An interfaith coalition of clergy did just that in the 1960s and early 70s - here's an article about it. They vetted providers for quality and safety, and then provided funds and transport to get patients to doctors, sometimes overseas even, who would provide the abortion safely.
So there is already a history and a framework for clergy to help people get abortions in this country. Unfortunately, with modern technology it will be much more difficult to operate an organization like that without leaving a massive data trail for law enforcement to exploit.
Thanks @North East Quine. Scotland seems to have been ahead of England, a not unusual occurrence...
I don't know if Scotland was ahead of England. I only know that abortion was generally legal provided it was carried out by a doctor in Scotland, prior to the 1967 Act. The same may have been true of England, I just don't know.
In Scotland the 1967 Act codified and clarified what had been an area of law with grey areas and uncertain boundaries.
Professor Sir Dugald Baird, his wife Dr May Baird, both proponents of safe, legal abortion, and their children, including their son Professor D.T. Baird who helped research the morning-after pill are about to have a hospital named after them in Aberdeen - The Baird Family Hospital.
The notion of data trails is important, as even googling "abortion pills" leaves a trace, and can get you in trouble. However, there is little doubt that encrypted networks will become available. However, there is still the issue of medical care, if needed, then you are in danger. Maybe, there will be emergency funds to enable you to travel, but even then you may be at risk.
There may well spring up medics who are prepared to treat patients with no questions asked, but they too, of course, would be in danger of arrest, and possibly execution...
The notion of data trails is important, as even googling "abortion pills" leaves a trace, and can get you in trouble. However, there is little doubt that encrypted networks will become available. However, there is still the issue of medical care, if needed, then you are in danger. Maybe, there will be emergency funds to enable you to travel, but even then you may be at risk.
There are already many mutual aid funds set up to help people travel to get abortion care - these were unfortunately already necessary in many states as even if abortion wasn't illegal, many states had very few abortion clinics left due to harassment and other problems. Many companies have already announced that they will pay for employees to travel for abortions and aftercare.
urther to the point made by Croesos about interstate commerce, and the sending of abortion pills, a further problem is that if anything goes wrong, the woman taking the pills would have to go to hospital, or a doctor, when presumably the police would be informed. What an amazing situation where a private medical matter is policed, quite literally. If this doesn't show a hatred of women, it gets damn close.
Another thing to remember is that it's impossible with current medical technology to tell the difference between a mifepristone/misoprostol induced miscarriage and a naturally occurring miscarriage. In other words, any woman showing up at the ER with a difficult or partial miscarriage would automatically be regarded as potential criminal.
Meanwhile, a further step towards the Republic of Gilead is provided by Mary Miller, who, endorsed and supported by someone she calls *President* Trump, calls the overturning of Roe v Wade *a victory for white life*:
I think it's important to note amongst the references to Gilead that The Handmaid's Tale tells the story of a dystopian future for white women that Black and Indigenous women in the US have already been experiencing.
Isn't that the definition of dystopian fiction? Take something that's already happen and write about it happening to white people?
There is also the morning after pill, which doesn't produce abortions, but I expect the right wing Christians will suss out a way to make it illegal.
They're already on it. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby the Supreme Court held that closely-held corporations (like the evangelical owned Hobby Lobby) were not subject to the HHS regulation mandating that employer-provided health insurance cover contraceptives. The reasoning was that the owners of Hobby Lobby believed certain forms of contraception caused miscarriages/abortions. That this belief was materially and factually false was irrelevant. The fact that the owners of Hobby Lobby believed that it was so, and did so on religious grounds, was sufficient for Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas to rule that particular insurance regulation unconstitutional.
This is not exactly true. We are not impotent here - even though we are not physically able to lend support, we can still donate money to local abortion services in the US and mutual aid networks. Cash is by far the most effective donation anyway. Organisations in the Deep South (plus Florida and Texas) and also the Upper Midwest spreading into the Mountain West (which have large Native populations) will need the most support. Anyone with a debit card and an email address can use PayPal, and our money works just fine in the US.
While there is of course a risk that it could happen in the UK, it is very unlikely for a few reasons. Firstly, the specific theology behind this in the US is more or less unique to the US - there may be sympathisers in the UK, but American identity is actually just as important to the theology as the whiteness. UK laws are also both devolved and not subject to the same kind of independently powerful judiciary. It would be vanishingly unlikely for such laws to make it through Parliament. Having a Parliamentary system protects us a great deal. Given that Westminster managed to fully decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland (not just legalise it) suggests that aside from a few dinosaurs, abortion rights are robustly defended by the majority of MPs. At the moment the big issue in UK abortion rights is about the legal establishment of buffer zones around abortion clinics, which would protect patients from being harassed by protesters. Currently the government refuses to make this legally binding though some individual London councils have installed them. Donating time and money to those campaigning for a change in the law along with badgering your local MP, and volunteering as an escort for patients if possible, would be a very good use of resources here in the UK.
Comments
I would expand that to include to the 1930's cases that underpinned the New Deal and ended the Lochner Era. The only reason NLRA vs. Jones & Loughlin Steel still standsis because the NLRA has been effectively gutted already through a thousand cuts rather than a single blow.
Speaking as a leftie, my surprise is why the Left is surprised by such tactics. The Right reacted to the "Magnificent 7" by assimilating the tactic of reform by litigation and appropriating it to its own ends. Turnabout is fair play.
We must also remember that the"Magnificent 7" cases came about as the Left felt legislative reform was a failure; they could not get the same ends passed through legislative means.
Again, this issue goes back to the New Deal. The Court-Packing Plan and the rise of the Conservative Coalition enabled the Right to control enough veto points in either house of Congress or the Presidency to stymie reform legislation of any sort. The sorry history of US Labor Law Reform after 1950 or the winding road to the Affordable Care Act are indicative of this multi-decade legislative sclerosis. And so the Left tried a different tack, now that hss been blocked too.
I can't predict what comes next for the Left.
They lied to get on the court. They are lying now.
But he promised to codify abortion rights....and he didn't do that. Obama could have codified abortion rights but literally said they were not a priority for him. Those of us who have been watching the US Religious Right have seen this coming for years and nobody believed us.
Scenario: Obama codifies abortion-rights, which galvanizes anti-choicers to go to the polls, with no concurrent galvanization of pro-choicers, because the pro-choicers don't perceive a crisis.
Not saying that's absolutely what would have happened, but such considerations might have played a role in the decision not to go ahead with codification.
I don't know if you've yet had the opportunity (assuming you have the will) to read the judgments. My understanding is that the Sup Ct ruled against the uniform federal legislation, saying that the legislation went beyond federal power; that leaves the individual States free to legislate on the topic themselves. Is that the position please?
Make your own minds up.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10249633/Rape-victim-forced-quit-therapy-sessions-feels-threatened-6ft-trans-woman.html
I don't like linking to the DM, but both sides here need knowing. I try to keep out of this subject, it being too divisive, and tangled up with personal experiences, but this is not, I think, a good case to build an argument about UK anti-trans behaviours on.
So basically, the writer is arguing said woman was insufficiently femme. I’d fall foul of that clothes policing - I am a cis gendered woman.
So would my wife - she gets mis-gendered all the time (including recently by airport security who inadvertently groped her after call her "sir"). Transphobia and the policing of gender presentation are very close cousins.
We earlier had some discussion of the links between transphobes and opposing abortion rights but in view of the shocking news I think that discussion of linkage would have to go to a separate thread now.
Penny S - rules are different in Epiphanies, please check our guidelines. The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source for discussing this issue or any issue which involves groups that newspaper targets. Please don't link to it or use it here. Thanks.
Gender policing would be a good topic for its own thread though.
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
The reports showed film of vehement supporters/protesters for both sides (depending on which way the result was going to go) outside a building which I assume is the US Supreme Court, all shouting, waving banners etc.
The decision had just been announced. So the anti-abortion protesters were jubilant and the right to choose ones desolate and angry. Both groups of supporters/protesters had plenty to say and were happy to express their views to the camera.
Now, my question. Both groups of supporters/protesters were equally fervent. They also appeared to be virtually entirely female. I'd have expected this to be true for the right to choose ones, but it was also true of the anti-abortion ones. Yet hitherto, the anti-abortion side has been represented, here and elsewhere, as the forces of repressive patriarchy, dogmatic male preachers and male judges trying to control women's bodies.
This can't be entirely true. Can somebody from the US who knows what they are talking about
( please do not use pre-emptively belittling
framing like this - L )
Louise
Epiphanies Host
What he promised to do was to “work to codify Roe v. Wade.” All he can do is try to get Congress to codify Roe. But as long as the Senate rules require a 60% vote for cloture for a bill to proceed—and, no, Biden hasn’t supported getting rid of the filibuster or tried to convince Democratic senators like Manchin or Sinema to do that—there’s no chance of that happening.
I have only read the syllabus and otherwise skimmed the opinions (that’s all I’ve had the will to do so far), but no, there was no uniform federal legislation for the Court to rule against. What there was on a federal level was the decision in Roe, and the later decision in Casey, which held that the US Constitution prohibits states from banning abortion, at least in the first and second trimesters. (That’s generally speaking; the framework was a bit more detailed.)
The Court was considering a Mississippi law that essentially prohibited abortion after 15 weeks. This was a law Mississippi enacted with the intent to try to challenge or undercut Roe.
The lower courts had enjoined enforcement of the law on the grounds that it conflicted with Roe. SCOTUS has now overruled Roe on the grounds that “[t]he Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion” and that the authority to regulate (and presumably not regulate) abortion lies with “the people and their elected representatives.”
So now it appears we’ll deal with a state-by-state situation, with some states protecting a woman’s right to choose, and other states totally banning abortion and even trying to regulate the ability to go to another state to obtain an abortion, and things all in between.
Enoch, I don't think your wording is quite right. The start to your first sentence would make more sense as " but if its core is that this is not a power given to the federal government and so it is one where each state must decide for itself should it wish to legislate". The second part raises a question which Nick Tamen would be much better qualified than I to answer, but given the constitutional similarities to the Aust experience, I'd say that the answer is that unless it is a federal matter, the Federal government has no power. The Supreme Court may still have a role, though - for example, a party dissatisfied with the decision of the ultimate appellate court of a State may seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. It would then be up to the Supreme Court to determine whether any other party should be given leave to intervene. Does that make sense?
Beyond that, I think the interstate commerce angle is an interesting one, but I wouldn’t bet on it carrying the day, especially with these justices. It’s not really a constitutional right to interstate trade; rather it’s the ability of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, and these days the Court seems to limit that to purely economic activity. Perhaps there was some confusion with the right to travel/move between states and the Privileges and Immunities Clause?
I appreciate that the RCC is by no means monolithic, and that there may well be widely divergent views and opinions, but I just wondered what the official line might be.
Come to think of it, what are the views of other denominations? I wouldn't be surprised if even some of the more conservative churches had qualms about it all...
As, so far as I know, there isn't another relevant thread on this topic in Purgatory or Hell to post this sort of question on, rather than try to re-post without offending the Epiphany rules, is there someone who can message me off board with an answer to my question?
No. As pointed out Roe v. Wade was not legislation, federal or otherwise, but a judicial precedent holding that, as a Constitutional matter, the decision to end a pregnancy was (at least in early stages) a matter to be decided by the person who was pregnant, not the state or federal government.
Under Dobbs, the matter is for the moment a subject for state legislation. There is nothing, however, which would prevent federal legislation establishing a national standard on this. In fact, Kavanaugh's concurrence hints broadly in this direction (p. 133):
As a practical matter, the Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court has given up all pretense of following precedent or being consistent (although I guess "enact the current agenda of the Republican party" is a form of consistency). In other words, any federal legislation codifying the ability to choose an abortion will be ruled unconstitutional and any federal law banning or restricting abortion will be held to be Constitutional by the current Supreme Court.
Theoretically the ability to regulate inter-state commerce is a federal power (with the exception of "intoxicating liquors" under the terms of the Twenty-First Amendment). I wouldn't count on that too much, though. The current SCOTUS isn't too troubled by consistency and legal conservatives have been angling for a narrowed interpretation of the commerce clause for a very long time.
It came from Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has plenary appellate jurisdiction and that carried over to Australia, along with a number of other items.
What concerns me is that through gerrymandering and packing the courts, Republicans have carefully made it close to impossible for voters to change this decision peacefully through our usual democratic methods. I'm worried this decision is going to accelerate our descent into making political decisions through violence instead - the white nationalists are already doing it, and if the rest of the public begins to feel that they have no peaceful avenue to make change...?
I am sometimes question why the US Right can't seem to fathom that political representation and dialogue is the continuous price of avoiding violence and revolution. Having too many people permanently "outside the system" threatens the system itself.
Canada’s crisis was about identity, but not about religion. When you confound identity with divine will—which is the case with modern American evangelicalism, essentially a white (and originally Southern and rural) identity movement—anything short of total compliance is unacceptable.
Eh, the two things tended to overlap alot of the time. I know older people who went to French convent schools in Manitoba(home of the infamous School Question) in the 1940s or so, and when the inspector dropped by, they had to hide their catechism books.
Granted, nowadays whether you like or dislike the French and/or Quebec usually has little to do with religion, and I used to know Alberta Catholics who were as francophobic as any Orangeman.
Peter C. Newman once wrote that Pierre Trudeau's public attacks on Meech Lake and Charlottetown pandered to anti-Quebec and anti-Catholic sentiment, but I think Newman was probably exaggerating the extent of the latter.
In the UK majority is assumed at 18. This is now the minimum age at which you may legally marry and has, since 1969 been the age at which you can legally borrow money or sign a contract that is binding. Pre 1969 is was 21.
I don't know if there are legal exclusions that apply to the Government or medical issues. ISTR a certain Mrs Gillick who fought such things way back in the 1970's Mrs M was involved in the sense of having once nursed Mrs G through a pregnancy.
Not in Scotland.
Marriage is legal from the age of 16.
I recall the publicity at the time (I was in my late teens), but don't remember if there was any opposition from the branch of the C of E in which I then was - Prayer Book Evangelical.
Illegal abortions were not unknown, of course, and in earlier years (around 1914) a certain Anglican priest - who was also an episcopus vagans - was imprisoned for supplying abortifacients. I don't know details of the case, but he may have been trying to help (albeit dangerously and illegally) young women of his London slum parish.
No doubt such things will become more common in parts of the US.
Fortunately, nowadays at least it is much safer to do a DIY abortion - especially if you have access to pills in order to induce a medical abortion (ie not surgical), which is done at home in the UK for early legal abortions anyway. Given that in many states abortion access has already been severely curtailed for a long time, I daresay that providers of abortion pills are already doing this. Certainly they were in Ireland before legalisation there.
Edited to add that abortion pills are only suitable in the early stages of pregnancy, they can't be used for all abortions - but when they are suitable, it's a very easy and low-risk abortion that can easily be done at home.
Sanctity of life?
Abortion carried out by a doctor was generally legal in Scotland prior to 1967, but the Act tidied up the law here, which was piecemeal prior to that.
Abortions were more difficult to obtain in Glasgow than Aberdeen, for example, because a higher percentage of doctors in Glasgow would refuse to carry out an abortion. The typical abortion prior to 1967 would be provided to a married woman who was over, or approaching, 40, already had at least three children, and whose health was expected to be compromised by a further pregnancy. Generally, the woman would be sterilised at the same time.
I had a lecture on abortion as part of my law degree around 1984. The lecturer was a doctor who had treated women who had had back street abortions, and was passionately in favour of safe, legal, abortions. It's not a lecture I will ever forget.
The Universalist Unitarians are somewhat famous for a really excellent sex ed programme in the US, especially compared to churches as a whole - I wonder if other churches and other religious groups (eg Reform Jewish congregations) could step up and provide similar along with contraception and abortion funds. I think the pro-choice religious groups really have to step up and actively combat anti-abortion groups with material action as well as statements. Native rights are also under threat as their recognition as sovereign nations means they legally can provide abortion services even in states that have banned it, and that idea being suggested - usually by white people, not by the actual Native communities - is seen by many abortion opponents as an excuse to decimate Native rights. Native women experience an extremely high rate of rape and sexual violence as well as murder and kidnap, as do First Nations women across the border in Canada. Given the historic role that the Church has played in the genocide of Indigenous peoples in the Americas including in the US, protecting Indigenous women and their abortion rights is particularly important imo.
Meanwhile, a further step towards the Republic of Gilead is provided by Mary Miller, who, endorsed and supported by someone she calls *President* Trump, calls the overturning of Roe v Wade *a victory for white life*:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/26/illinois-mary-miller-roe-wade-abortion-verdict-victory-for-white-life-trump
The Quiverfull and Dominionist movements have been explicit about being a white supremacist fertility cult for *decades*. I remember talking about the danger from Dominionists in the US on the Old Ship only for them to be dismissed as a minor crank group with no real political influence. Now they're in the Supreme Court. They and their children have been wearing t-shirts promising that Roe vs Wade will not outlive them for years and years but nobody took them seriously.
TEC is, of course, strongly opposed to this decision.
Here is a statement from the Presiding Bishop.
An interfaith coalition of clergy did just that in the 1960s and early 70s - here's an article about it. They vetted providers for quality and safety, and then provided funds and transport to get patients to doctors, sometimes overseas even, who would provide the abortion safely.
So there is already a history and a framework for clergy to help people get abortions in this country. Unfortunately, with modern technology it will be much more difficult to operate an organization like that without leaving a massive data trail for law enforcement to exploit.
I don't know if Scotland was ahead of England. I only know that abortion was generally legal provided it was carried out by a doctor in Scotland, prior to the 1967 Act. The same may have been true of England, I just don't know.
In Scotland the 1967 Act codified and clarified what had been an area of law with grey areas and uncertain boundaries.
Professor Sir Dugald Baird, his wife Dr May Baird, both proponents of safe, legal abortion, and their children, including their son Professor D.T. Baird who helped research the morning-after pill are about to have a hospital named after them in Aberdeen - The Baird Family Hospital.
I think it behoves those of us in the UK to be very careful as to what we say about this appalling moment in American history.
We can only watch with impotent horror from this side of the Pond, and hope that it doesn't happen here...
@North East Quine - yes, it does appear that abortion was legal (under certain circumstances) in other parts of the UK before 1967:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_Kingdom#The_1967_Act
A nightmare scenario all round.
There are already many mutual aid funds set up to help people travel to get abortion care - these were unfortunately already necessary in many states as even if abortion wasn't illegal, many states had very few abortion clinics left due to harassment and other problems. Many companies have already announced that they will pay for employees to travel for abortions and aftercare.
Another thing to remember is that it's impossible with current medical technology to tell the difference between a mifepristone/misoprostol induced miscarriage and a naturally occurring miscarriage. In other words, any woman showing up at the ER with a difficult or partial miscarriage would automatically be regarded as potential criminal.
She claims to have mis-spoken, but I think a Hitler fangirl gets diminshed benefit of the doubt in this case.
Isn't that the definition of dystopian fiction? Take something that's already happen and write about it happening to white people?
They're already on it. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby the Supreme Court held that closely-held corporations (like the evangelical owned Hobby Lobby) were not subject to the HHS regulation mandating that employer-provided health insurance cover contraceptives. The reasoning was that the owners of Hobby Lobby believed certain forms of contraception caused miscarriages/abortions. That this belief was materially and factually false was irrelevant. The fact that the owners of Hobby Lobby believed that it was so, and did so on religious grounds, was sufficient for Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas to rule that particular insurance regulation unconstitutional.
This is not exactly true. We are not impotent here - even though we are not physically able to lend support, we can still donate money to local abortion services in the US and mutual aid networks. Cash is by far the most effective donation anyway. Organisations in the Deep South (plus Florida and Texas) and also the Upper Midwest spreading into the Mountain West (which have large Native populations) will need the most support. Anyone with a debit card and an email address can use PayPal, and our money works just fine in the US.
While there is of course a risk that it could happen in the UK, it is very unlikely for a few reasons. Firstly, the specific theology behind this in the US is more or less unique to the US - there may be sympathisers in the UK, but American identity is actually just as important to the theology as the whiteness. UK laws are also both devolved and not subject to the same kind of independently powerful judiciary. It would be vanishingly unlikely for such laws to make it through Parliament. Having a Parliamentary system protects us a great deal. Given that Westminster managed to fully decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland (not just legalise it) suggests that aside from a few dinosaurs, abortion rights are robustly defended by the majority of MPs. At the moment the big issue in UK abortion rights is about the legal establishment of buffer zones around abortion clinics, which would protect patients from being harassed by protesters. Currently the government refuses to make this legally binding though some individual London councils have installed them. Donating time and money to those campaigning for a change in the law along with badgering your local MP, and volunteering as an escort for patients if possible, would be a very good use of resources here in the UK.