Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Roe v. Wade overturned

Posted in:

Illinois
Updated Posts

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

Prepare for updates.

…Adding… From the decision…

(1) First, the Court reviews the standard that the Court’s cases have used to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s reference to “liberty” protects a particular right. The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion, but several constitutional provisions have been offered as potential homes for an implicit constitutional right. Roe held that the abortion right is part of a right to privacy that springs from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. See 410 U. S., at 152–153. The Casey Court grounded its decision solely on the theory that the right to obtain an abortion is part of the “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Others have suggested that support can be found in the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, but that theory is squarely foreclosed by the Court’s precedents, which establish that a State’s regulation of abortion is not a sex-based classification and is thus not subject to the heightened scrutiny that applies to such classifications. See Geduldig v. Aiello, 417 U. S. 484, 496, n. 20; Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U. S. 263, 273– 274. Rather, regulations and prohibitions of abortion are governed by the same standard of review as other health and safety measures. Pp. 9–11.

(2) Next, the Court examines whether the right to obtain an abortion is rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition and whether it is an essential component of “ordered liberty.” The Court finds that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition. The underlying theory on which Casey rested—that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause provides substantive, as well as procedural, protection for “liberty”—has long been controversial.

The Court’s decisions have held that the Due Process Clause protects two categories of substantive rights—those rights guaranteed by the first eight Amendments to the Constitution and those rights deemed fundamental that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories, the question is whether the right is “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” and whether it is essential to this Nation’s “scheme of ordered liberty.” Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U. S. ___, ___ (internal quotation marks omitted). The term “liberty” alone provides little guidance. Thus, historical inquiries are essential whenever the Court is asked to recognize a new component of the “liberty” interest protected by the Due Process Clause. In interpreting what is meant by “liberty,” the Court must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what the Fourteenth Amendment protects with the Court’s own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. For this reason, the Court has been “reluctant” to recognize rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution. Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 125.

Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of the Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion. Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right. Until a few years before Roe, no federal or state court had recognized such a right. Nor had any scholarly treatise. Indeed, abortion had long been a crime in every single State. At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages. American law followed the common law until a wave of statutory restrictions in the 1800s expanded criminal liability for abortions. By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy. This consensus endured until the day Roe was decided. Roe either ignored or misstated this history, and Casey declined to reconsider Roe’s faulty historical analysis.

Respondents’ argument that this history does not matter flies in the face of the standard the Court has applied in determining whether an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is nevertheless protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Solicitor General repeats Roe’s claim that it is “doubtful . . . abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus,” 410 U. S., at 136, but the great common-law authorities—Bracton, Coke, Hale, and Blackstone—all wrote that a postquickening abortion was a crime. Moreover, many authorities asserted that even a pre-quickening abortion was “unlawful” and that, as a result, an abortionist was guilty of murder if the woman died from the attempt. The Solicitor General suggests that history supports an abortion right because of the common law’s failure to criminalize abortion before quickening, but the insistence on quickening was not universal, see Mills v. Commonwealth, 13 Pa. 631, 633; State v. Slagle, 83 N. C. 630, 632, and regardless, the fact that many States in the late 18th and early 19th century did not criminalize pre-quickening abortions does not mean that anyone thought the States lacked the authority to do so.

Instead of seriously pressing the argument that the abortion right itself has deep roots, supporters of Roe and Casey contend that the abortion right is an integral part of a broader entrenched right. Roe termed this a right to privacy, 410 U. S., at 154, and Casey described it as the freedom to make “intimate and personal choices” that are “central to personal dignity and autonomy,” 505 U. S., at 851. Ordered liberty sets limits and defines the boundary between competing interests. Roe and Casey each struck a particular balance between the interests of a woman who wants an abortion and the interests of what they termed “potential life.” Roe, 410 U. S., at 150; Casey, 505 U. S., at 852. But the people of the various States may evaluate those interests differently. The Nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated. Pp. 11–30.

(3) Finally, the Court considers whether a right to obtain an abortion is part of a broader entrenched right that is supported by other precedents. The Court concludes the right to obtain an abortion cannot be justified as a component of such a right. Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion is different because it destroys what Roe termed “potential life” and what the law challenged in this case calls an “unborn human being.” None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. Accordingly, those cases do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and the Court’s conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way. Pp. 30–32.

(b) The doctrine of stare decisis does not counsel continued acceptance of Roe and Casey. Stare decisis plays an important role and protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a past decision. It “reduces incentives for challenging settled precedents, saving parties and courts the expense of endless relitigation.” Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U. S. 446, 455. It “contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827. And it restrains judicial hubris by respecting the judgment of those who grappled with important questions in the past. But stare decisis is not an inexorable command, Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 233, and “is at its weakest when [the Court] interpret[s] the Constitution,” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 235. Some of the Court’s most important constitutional decisions have overruled prior precedents. See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 491 (overruling the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, and its progeny).

posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:20 am

Comments

What a disgrace

Comment by Nick Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:21 am
I can’t wait to finally hear what Richard Irvin thinks (banned punctuation)

Comment by So_Ill Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:24 am
A clear example of the “conservative” members of the court having a pre-judged opinion and using all manner of contortions to justify their preferred outcome.

Comment by Teacher Lady Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:26 am
This Court has totally thrown the principle of stare decisis out the window. We can’t count on the law being the law anymore because we can’t count on this Court to uphold precedent. I have lost all faith in the Supreme Court of the United States.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:26 am
The decision will be returned to states (states rights) until such time as their is a republican majority. Then they will attempt to pass or pass a federal abortion ban fully demonstrating their legal hypocrisy.

Comment by JS Mill Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:31 am
A Christian nationalist majority on the Supreme Court is a terrifying thought.

Comment by Baloneymous Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:31 am
The right has been returned to the people? That’s exactly the opposite of what you’ve done. What a joke.

Comment by Ed Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:32 am
===right===

Overturning a ban to *get* a right isn’t what you think it is.

Good try.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:33 am
Radical decision by a corrupt, out of control supreme court.

Comment by ChicagoVinny Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:34 am
Reminder: gay marriage is next. This is the exact same language Alito used in his Obergefell dissent.

Comment by Homebody Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:34 am
==This Court has totally thrown the principle of stare decisis out the window. ==

It started with the Janus decision, and it doesn’t end with Roe.

Comment by AC Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:35 am
stop with the what is next. today this is about women and agency. and this decision is abhorrent. we are less than re Alito. angry. angry. angry.

Comment by Amalia Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:37 am
From the dissent:

Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens.

Yep.

The dissent also talks about the future overrulings of Obergefell, Loving, etc.

Yep.

Comment by Steve Rogers Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:37 am
==involved the critical moral question==

The Court didn’t seem too concerned about “critical moral questions” yesterday when they expanded gun rights in this country. In fact, Justice Alito excoriated the dissent and ridiculed it’s commentary on gun violence in American as irrelevant. So, apparently we are left to the whims of the Court’s definitions of what is moral and what is not moral.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:37 am
It is surprising the Republican ( not conservative) court did not issue the ruling on the day of a January 6 hearing in an attempt to minimize the congressional hearings news. All politics, all the time for this Republican court… nothing “Judicial” about this lot.

Comment by Kippax Blue Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:41 am
Mrs. Blue is euphoric.

Comment by Blue Dog Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:45 am
If this is not an example that both political parties are not the same, and Hillary and Trump were not alike, what can be?

Good luck to companies and others moving to anti-abortion states, going backward decades just to pay no state income tax and not pay workers more. Illinois will mount a fight to stay in the 21st Century. Now that our finances and outlook have improved, we should and probably will make a strong push to welcome companies, based on this ruling.

Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:48 am
==we are left to the whims of the Court’s definitions of what is moral and what is not moral.==.

Spot on. What we will have is similar to what they have in Iran where a group of elders decides whats moral and legal and what isnt

Comment by low level Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:51 am
Remember when the GOP used to rail against activist judges?

Comment by Jocko Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:52 am
“They’ll never overturn Roe; you’re just being hysterical”
*Roe is overturned.
“They won’t go after other decisions that were built on Roe, you’re just being hysterical.”
Clarence Thomas has called on the court to overturn same-sex marriage and contraception.
We’re NOT being hysterical (banned punctuation)

Comment by Teacher Lady Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 9:56 am
–Reminder: gay marriage is next.–

Homebody, don’t compare my SSM to the shedding of blood.
Obergefell’s dissenters are not today’s Roe overturners. Alito’s leaked notes specifically distinguished the expansion of rights per se from the absolute mater familias that is untrammeled abortion.

Comment by Gay unto Term Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 10:13 am
Express all the anger you want. When you step into the voting booth will abortion be a driver in deciding how to vote? Or are you just going to be angry? If a candidate campaigns on a anti-abortion platform does that guarantee you will not vote for them? What are you willing to do here. At some point simple anger is equal to the ‘thoughts and prayers’ mantra following a shooting.

Comment by zatoichi Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 10:17 am
I am happy to see things that are not in the constitution refuted and overturned and things that are in the constitution restored and respected.

Comment by Captain Obvious Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 10:18 am
=When you step into the voting booth will abortion be a driver in deciding how to vote?=

I’ve never been a single issue voter and this won’t turn me into one. But the decision is part of a larger pattern which makes the GOP untenable at this point. The party seems to be intent on shrinking its tent and may very well find itself irrelevant in the state of Illinois. Abortion is part of that descent but by no means the only issue. Economic prosperity and hardship comes and goes. But the dismantling of our rights and freedoms is far more important too me than the price of gas or where the stock market is on a given day.

Comment by Pundent Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 10:26 am
It is like shooting fish in a barrel refuting the conservatives’ legal arguments. For one, the Ninth Amendment to the constitution says “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” But Alito’s argument is basically the constitution does not say the word abortion, so there is no right to an abortion. Great textualism there.

Broadly, if you think it is so unethical to get an abortion, don’t get one. It is not more ethical if people are being forced to do things they don’t actually believe.

Comment by Three Dimensional Checkers Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 10:27 am
Election’s have consequences. Never more clear than today for many folks.

Let’s see if it moves the needle. Lets see if Iowa votes out an 88 year old Charles Grassley and on down the line.

But to Illinois - glad to see a special session will be called.

Kinda too angry and let down to have many more cogent thoughts.

Comment by Cool Papa Bell Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 10:29 am
I agree with the decision

Comment by Anthony Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 11:02 am
“Obergefell’s dissenters are not today’s Roe overturners. Alito’s leaked notes specifically distinguished…”

From the Thomas concurrence: “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” (emphasis added)

It’s not too late to stop being a fool.

– MrJM

Comment by MisterJayEm Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 11:19 am
In the name of diversity, can I post a minority opinion on this blog?

This is nothing new. Overturning precedent is nothing new. Some of the most hallowed Supreme Court opinions ignored Stare Decisis and overturned established opinions. Brown v. Board of Education, Obergefell, etc. It has happened many times in the past and will occur in the future.

Personally, I agree with this decision. It says nothing on the merits pro or con on abortion. It does admit that the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision arrogated powers belonging to the states.

It’s not often you get a government body to admit error, even if by a slim margin.

I predict an increase in the Illinois Department of Commerce budget for advertising depicting Illinois as an abortion tourism destination.

Comment by Ret. Army Colonel Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 11:24 am
=== I predict an increase in the Illinois Department of Commerce budget for advertising depicting Illinois as an abortion tourism destination.===

That is a creepy and sickening take.

I can’t think of anyone who thought an abortion was a vacation, or anyone thinking “vacation” with abortion.

Creepy and sickening.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 11:35 am
===I predict an increase in the Illinois Department of Commerce budget for advertising touting Illinois as a place where women’s rights are protected and an excellent place to do business if you’re interested in real freedom for you and your employees.===

There - fixed it for ya

Comment by Joe Bidenopolous Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 11:36 am
So yesterday, state’s rights to pass laws on public carrying of guns was overturned. Today states rights to regulate reproductive rights of women was reinstated.
If the law can be overturned because it hasn’t been in effect as long as the constitution, what keeps any other law established after 1776 from being overturned?

As a female
- do I get to have my own credit card, loan, or own property?
- do I get to work at night if I want ?
- work while pregnant?
- get birth control if I am unmarried?
- or vote?
Remember the Equal Rights Amendment was never passed

Comment by thoughts matter Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 11:46 am
Only a warped mind would associate abortion and vacation. That’s why I never mentioned it. Never crossed my mind.

But you have heard of “medical tourism,” surely. A totally different concept.

Comment by Ret. Army Colonel Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 11:54 am
So what about a 9th Amendment argument? Are there any human rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution that should supersede State’s Rights (10th Amendment)?

Comment by H-W Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 11:58 am
====Homebody, don’t compare my SSM to the shedding of blood.====

You do realize that LGBTQIA+ blood is still being spilt in hate crimes by religious, anti-gay zealots right? Those people that spill that blood also don’t want SSM. They are not on your side just because you are pro-life.

Comment by Baloneymous Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 12:06 pm
== state’s rights to pass laws on public carrying of guns was overturned. ==

Only State laws that can be applied arbitrarily and capriciously. SCOTUS was careful to point out that firearms regulations can be enacted and enforced by States provided they are not so onerous as to violate the US Constitution.

Comment by RNUG Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 12:07 pm
RNUG- thank you for the clarification regarding my post. It’s an important distinction.

Comment by thoughts matter Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 12:20 pm
=That is a creepy and sickening take.=

Yep, and that has been the anti-abortion movements M.O. since the 70’s. These so called christians have said and done uncountable gross and vile things as “protests” including bombings. There isn’t a bar low enough for them.

=So yesterday, state’s rights to pass laws on public carrying of guns was overturned. Today states rights to regulate reproductive rights of women was reinstated.=

Many here have recognized the regular hypocrisy of the “local-control” and “states rights” spewing right wing. That has always been a code for them.they don’t actually mean it, it is invoked as a convenience. Their utter hypocrisy has no bounds.

Comment by JS Mill Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 12:21 pm
“I predict an increase in the Illinois Department of Commerce budget for advertising touting Illinois as a place where women’s rights are protected and an excellent place to do business if you’re interested in real freedom for you and your employees.”

The Pritzker Admin ought to target messaging to every HS junior and senior girl in Kentucky, Mississippi, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee and West Virginia. It should say: “Illinois respects the rights of women to make their own healthcare decisions. We also have world-class universities and are a great place to start your career. Illinois respects your right to choose and we hope you’ll choose Illinois.”

Not only would that be great messaging for growing population in the state, it would get Pritzker’s name and brand out in the US ahead of any national political ambitions he may have.

Comment by sulla Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 12:23 pm
=Only State laws that can be applied arbitrarily and capriciously.=

I think the current USSC has demonstrated otherwise.

Comment by JS Mill Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 1:12 pm
While I hate this decision and the chaos that it makes, I have a small appreciation for the argument that specific laws should probably be the way that things should change, rather than which party appointed 5 justices on the court. Sadly, laws can come and go as the majority in Congress changes, and our current partisan stalemate in the Senate practically guarantees no action on this or any other hot-button issue (like legalization of same sex marriage, drug use, etc.) for decades.

Comment by Jibba Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 1:16 pm
Ret. Army Colonel , so you are all for free health care for pregnant women and help for poor babies, right?

Comment by low level Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 1:19 pm
Isn’t Loving v. Virginia considered a Due Process Clause decision? I wonder why Thomas left that out of his text?

Comment by Proud Sucker Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 1:23 pm
Low Level: Why does being pro-life always come with the ask that we be pro free health care and government subsidy of the poor? How about we are proponents of personal responsibility, making good choices, having a plan to care for your own, and have working parents? Is that too much to ask?

Comment by Papa2008 Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 1:49 pm
===How about we are proponents of personal responsibility, making good choices, having a plan to care for your own===

Papa, your lack of self awareness would be hilarious if this were not so serious, as you support taking choices away from others.

Comment by Jibba Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 1:56 pm
==How about we are proponents of personal responsibility, making good choices, having a plan to care for your own, and have working parents==

So you are one of those “I’m against abortion but don’t want to care for the kids” types. Life is complicated. You can wish in one hand and do something in the other and see which fills up first. Facts are facts and kids will continue to be born into difficult situations. It’s society’s responsibility to assist those kids in any way possible. You aren’t truly “pro life” unless you are “pro life” once they are born too.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 1:58 pm
Jibba: I will always support encouraging the negation of poor choices. Especially those that end in the death of another human.
Demoralized: We disagree it’s society’s responsibility when the government is the preferred option. I would respectfully submit charitable organizations should be the preferred provider of social safety nets.

Comment by Papa2008 Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 2:05 pm
===charitable organizations should be the preferred provider of social safety nets===

They are.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 2:10 pm
==They are.==

And many of them wouldn’t be without government funding.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 2:15 pm
==We disagree it’s society’s responsibility==

So basically you’re opposed to living in a civilized society.

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 2:16 pm
==haritable organizations should be the preferred provider of social safety nets==

So I sent and looked up one of those charitable organizations. Lutheran Social Services of Illinois has over $23 million in contracts with the state. Are you saying that the government should not be spending that money? And if so, how do you propose those services be replaced?

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 2:26 pm
i *went* not sent

Comment by Demoralized Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 2:27 pm
If the right to terminate an innocent life is your definition of a civilized society - I am opposed. I would surely hope that is not your belief.

Comment by Papa2008 Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 2:48 pm
===I will always support encouraging the negation of poor choices===

Your kind has gone a bit farther than that today. Religious folk who say “I don’t like what you are doing, so stop it” are controlling others, not allowing them to make their own choices, good or bad. Try saying “I don’t like what they’re doing so I’ll support giving them other options” and you’ll make a much better society.

Comment by Jibba Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 2:50 pm
Papa2008 — Just want to point out that “personal responsibility” can’t help you in cases of rape and incest, that choices that seem good on one day may seem less good a few weeks later (as in my friend who was happily pregnant until she found out her 35-yo husband was dying, and she didn’t see a world in which she could be there for her husband while being pregnant and caring for a fatherless newborn) that plans don’t always turn out the way you expect (like when, you know, you lose a job because of an economic downturn over which you have no control.) Also — here’s a fun fact: Everything can be going along great, and suddenly an accident or illness changes everything for you and your family, permanently.

But feel free to post easy answers to difficult, painful questions.

Also — in 1991, Soccermom got pregnant after years of infertility. At 11 weeks, all systems seemed to be go. Hurrah! And then I started to miscarry. I went in to the doctor, and they told me that the embryo had never quite made it to the fetus stage. There was still an electrical pulse (known as a “heartbeat,” even though there was no actual heart.) But there was never going to be a baby. They told me I could either have the miscarriage completed surgically — technically, an “abortion” — or I could go home and “let nature take its course.” They added that there was a non-zero chance of bleeding to death with the second option.

So here’s why we call it “Pro-Choice.” All the good options (i.e., the one in which I got to bring home a lovely new person for our family) were off the table. But I got to choose between having one horrible, heartbreaking day and having a few horrible, heartbreaking, potentially terrifying days. I picked column A. But in an increasingly long list of states with “heartbeat” laws, that option is now illegal.

I don’t know why anyone would be “euphoric” because pregnant women who are facing tragic news are being denied medical care that could save their lives and their fertility.

Comment by Soccermom Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 2:53 pm
=== Lutheran Social Services of Illinois has over $23 million in contracts with the state===

If I’m remembering my history right, one of Martin Luther’s big disagreements with the Catholic Church was that the church should not control all charities. The general public should also have a major role to play.

Comment by Rich Miller Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 2:55 pm
Soccermom +1

The removal of choice eventually leads to the introduction/implementation of force.

Comment by Jocko Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 3:32 pm
Thanks, - Soccermom -

OW

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 3:40 pm
===But you have heard of “medical tourism,” surely. A totally different concept.===

Are you equating abortion to Botox?

Sickening, but it’s who you are with this.

Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 3:42 pm
from the decision: “regulation of abortion is not a sex-based classification”

So how many men have attempted to get an abortion for themselves?

Comment by Goodson Oddman Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 4:25 pm
“Overturning precedent is nothing new.”

The bigger issue is SCOTUS candidates telling the senate that they respect precedent (lying) to get approved. And if you don’t care about precedent I guess you won’t complain when a future court overturns the decisions from today and yesterday. And a number of others from the last couple decades.

A big problem with this court, regardless of one’s political views, is that the arguments they come up with to justify their decisions risk opening the floodgates for unintended consequences.

Comment by The Velvet Frog Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 4:35 pm
I agree with the Decision.

Comment by Ryder Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 4:38 pm
Comparing the 2nd Amendment ruling with the abortion ruling is a false comparison; the 2nd Amendment is a listed right from the beginning. No such language exists for abortion or any kind of marriage, etc.; the rights were construed under various Constitutional provisions which makes them fundamentally different from clearly-enumerated rights. So the pendulum has swung to and fro in two very different rulings with very different historical basis.

Comment by thisjustinagain Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 4:39 pm
Papa - because its not the baby’s fault. You have shown your “pro-life” credentials to be absolutely bankrupt

Comment by low level Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 4:40 pm
Ryder, would you like a cookie or something?

Comment by The Velvet Frog Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 4:45 pm
Low Level - you carry the baby.

Comment by Proud Papa Bear Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 4:47 pm
“its not the baby’s fault”
Nobody has an abortion to punish a baby but that’s the trope the pro-life movement peddles.
As far as pro-life credentials being bankrupt, the GOP has shown time and time again it’s not interested in life, just in controlling women’s bodies.

Comment by Proud Papa Bear Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 4:50 pm
==the GOP has shown time and time again it’s not interested in life, just in controlling women’s bodies.==.

We agree there

Comment by low level Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 4:55 pm
I was talking to Papa2008… sorry for confusion

Comment by low level Friday, Jun 24, 22 @ 4:56 pm