SCOTUS Overturning Roe v. Wade

[trustfundkiller]

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/0...inion-00029473

Scary times we're living in. Of all the issues going on in our country, Republicans have decided that abortion rights are a top priority despite the fact that 69% of Americans do not want this. Very concerning as there are a number of religious zealots on the Supreme Court who don't care about logic, morality or principles, and will use this as an opportunity to enforce their beliefs on us. This decision would be a truly devastating step backwards for our country, but nothing surprises me anymore.

[Eric Stoner]

It's not a final opinion. Most observers expected a trimming of Roe v. Wade without a total overturning. If it is the final decision then abortion will once again be a State not Federal issue. Some states will be more restrictive. Some will ban abortion outright. Some will expand abortion rights beyond Roe i.e. any abortion , any time for any reason. Groups like PP will probably organize trips from states that ban or restrict to those with greater availability. It will not be the end of the world but it will be different. If, as the polls say, most Americans want to retain Roe in whole or in part then abortion will remain a hot button issue at the state level.

The real outrage is with whoever leaked the draft opinion. He or she should be ferreted out , fired and disbarred. They already have a few prime suspects.

[Likethis]

^Some nerve coming here talking about "the real outrage". Women have literally died from strict abortion laws. There are several examples through the years and internationally where women have been refused certain care in order to "save the child" and in the process the women themselves have died.

Women are out there risking their lives having babies, pregnancy and giving birth can literally kill a woman (a friend of mine recently had a child and lost so much blood but thankfully she was in a hospital and they quickly gave her blood transfusion and then surgery). Just the thought of being involuntarily pregnant is very scary, completely losing control of your body and life. And what kind of life will those children get, often the pregnant woman wants an abortion for a reason although she doesn't need one at all as it should be a free choice.

But who gives a fuck about women's rights to their bodies or if women die right, let's find the one who leaked the draft *priorities*

[LaurenAus]

It's not a final opinion. Most observers expected a trimming of Roe v. Wade without a total overturning. If it is the final decision then abortion will once again be a State not Federal issue. Some states will be more restrictive. Some will ban abortion outright. Some will expand abortion rights beyond Roe i.e. any abortion , any time for any reason. Groups like PP will probably organize trips from states that ban or restrict to those with greater availability. It will not be the end of the world but it will be different. If, as the polls say, most Americans want to retain Roe in whole or in part then abortion will remain a hot button issue at the state level.

The real outrage is with whoever leaked the draft opinion. He or she should be ferreted out , fired and disbarred. They already have a few prime suspects.

Imagine coming on a sex worker friendly, majority female forum, to post that the real outrage surrounding this issue about taking our reproductive rights away is really about "whoever leaked draft opinion" and that the potential consequences will "not be the end of the world"

[lurkingtitties]

Can we just pre-emptively lock this thread? Or does it have to turn into a 20 page shitshow first? This is a sensitive topic.

[kamiliam]

The real outrage is with whoever leaked the draft opinion. He or she should be ferreted out , fired and disbarred. They already have a few prime suspects.

pretty high probability it came from clerk(s) on the majority opinion. You still feel the same way?

even my argumentative self has no desire to go back and forth on this with people who fundamentally don’t consider us equal.

all cases in the scope of our right to privacy is up for grabs with this illegitimate court.

[trustfundkiller]

Can we just pre-emptively lock this thread? Or does it have to turn into a 20 page shitshow first? This is a sensitive topic.

I didn't think this thread would be dramatic as long as people keep it civil. I'm very curious to hear what other people think about the likelihood of this actually happening.

[Marina Starr]

It made my heart swell when 'blues' are being dragged. I'm here for ALL of it.

Men that say they're allies for women's rights but ain't doing shit, it's time to step up and get a vasectomy.

[eagle2]

The real outrage is with whoever leaked the draft opinion. He or she should be ferreted out , fired and disbarred. They already have a few prime suspects.

Are you kidding?! The real outrage is that one of our political parties, as well as the majority of Supreme Court justices, have a complete disregard for the Constitution, the rule of law, the will of the American people, as well as the health and lives of young women. Five of the six conservative members of the Supreme Court were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. At least three were confirmed by senators representing less than half of the American people. We now have a party that represents a minority of Americans, consisting mostly of old, white Christians, imposing their backward, ignorant religious beliefs on the rest of America.

[Djoser]

The real outrage is with whoever leaked the draft opinion.

No, the REAL outrage is that we now have Bible beating zealots in the SCOTUS, trying to bring back atavism in the name of Jesus.

Now I am breaking the damned rules about politics here. But as this is a forum dedicated to women in the adult industry, I don't feel too bad about criticizing these fucks who want women subservient and docile, because their warped view of a 2,000 year old man, and the incredibly contrived subsequent mythology surrounding him tells them it's the 'right' thing to do.

[Djoser]

Can we just pre-emptively lock this thread? Or does it have to turn into a 20 page shitshow first? This is a sensitive topic.

I loosened up the formerly strict policy against politics here about the time Trump started calling himself the 'Chosen One', knowing full well that many millions of his most loyal followers actually, literally believe that we in the adult industry will burn alive for all time in hell. Then there was the Covid thing, the war in Ukraine, etc. So I've tried to keep it a little more open, with varying results.

I still don't want to see the kind of personal attacks we saw here on SW many years ago, before the ban on politics. What I've done in the past was watch for reports and try to gauge the level of nastiness, and if it got out of hand, close the thread. I'd hate to do so here, but may well wind up doing so.

[Djoser]

[rickdugan]

I didn't think this thread would be dramatic as long as people keep it civil. I'm very curious to hear what other people think about the likelihood of this actually happening.

Tbh I think it is highly probable at this point. Yes votes can change prior to formal issuance, but the judges in question were tipping their hands during oral arguments in November and this just confirms where they were headed.

There is a silver lining in this though for those who are unhappy with this. The draft opinion is essentially saying that the Supreme Court never had the Constitutional right to overturn the TX ban on abortion in 1973 because the Constitution is silent on the topic. Whatever powers not explicitly granted to the federal government or explicitly prohibited to the states are solely the province of the states. In essence this means that the same rationale used to allow states to decide the issue will also ensure that there can never be a federal ban on abortion.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Tbh I think it is highly probable at this point. Yes votes can change prior to formal issuance, but the judges in question were tipping their hands during oral arguments in November and this just confirms where they were headed.

There is a silver lining in this though for those who are unhappy with this. The draft opinion is essentially saying that the Supreme Court never had the Constitutional right to overturn the TX ban on abortion in 1973 because the Constitution is silent on the topic. Whatever powers not explicitly granted to the federal government or explicitly prohibited to the states are solely the province of the states. In essence this means that the same rationale used to allow states to decide the issue will also ensure that there can never be a federal ban on abortion.

No, the SCOTUS law already ignored the sue/snitch on your neighbor provisions of the latest Texas law. This is 100% endless overreach, next step is making it illegal to cross state lines to get an abortion, then full federal ban on abortions.

Extremists will never stop at just overturning Roe v Wade. Extremists will never stop at anything really.

[rickdugan]

This is 100% endless overreach, next step is making it illegal to cross state lines to get an abortion, then full federal ban on abortions.

They can try, but it won't succeed. I know that Rand Paul of KY has wanted to shoot for a federal ban. But the Supreme Court is not going to take the position that abortion laws are the province of the states and then allow other branches of the federal government to override that determination.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is why almost all criminal matters, licensing decisions, practice credentials (including legal and medical) are decided at the state level. If this ruling goes through, abortion will be no different.

[DeathAndTaxes]

It was believed, not too recently, that it would have been impossible for the court to overturn precedent, but here we are.

Extremists will push it, and Democrats keep laying down and taking it. Name a more iconic duo for full fledged fascism.

[rickdugan]

It was believed, not to recently, that it would have been impossible for the court to overturn precedent, but here we are.

Extremists will push it, and Democrats keep laying down and taking it. Name a more iconic duo for full fledged fascism.

To be clear, I'm not here to argue the pros and cons of abortion, just to discuss the Court's thinking as I understand it.

Tbh the precedent has always had very shaky legs from a Constitutional standpoint. In order to make it work, the Court first had to infer a right to privacy that never existed in the Constitution and then engage in creative mental gymnastics to shoehorn abortion in as a privacy issue. At the time it was a very liberal court with Justices prone to rather broad interpretations, this probably being one of their broadest. It was probably inevitable that the pendulum would swing and that, eventually, the precedent would be overturned once the Court had more Constitutional texualists in its ranks.

But as far as fascism, let's tone it down. Fascists take power, they don't give it away to others (in this case the states). Like it or not, this court is doing here what it has done in several other cases, which is to keep the federal government in check. It just so happens that many aren't happy with this particular limit on federal authority.

And with that I am going to unsubscribe. I came on here just to discuss the process and this is everything I have on that topic. I understand that there are going to be a lot of strong feelings on the potential impacts of this so I will get out of the way and wish all well.

[Eric Stoner]

To be clear, I'm not here to argue the pros and cons of abortion, just to discuss the Court's thinking as I understand it.

Tbh the precedent has always had very shaky legs from a Constitutional standpoint. In order to make it work, the Court first had to infer a right to privacy that never existed in the Constitution and then engage in creative mental gymnastics to shoehorn abortion in as a privacy issue. At the time it was a very liberal court with Justices prone to rather broad interpretations, this probably being one of their broadest. It was probably inevitable that the pendulum would swing and that, eventually, the precedent would be overturned once the Court had more Constitutional texualists in its ranks.

But as far as fascism, let's tone it down. Fascists take power, they don't give it away to others (in this case the states). Like it or not, this court is doing here what it has done in several other cases, which is to keep the federal government in check. It just so happens that many aren't happy with this particular limit on federal authority.

And with that I am going to unsubscribe. I came on here just to discuss the process and this is everything I have on that topic. I understand that there are going to be a lot of strong feelings on the potential impacts of this so I will get out of the way and wish all well.

Hmmmm. Not quite. Almost everyone agrees that there IS a "right to privacy". The issue is whether it includes a right to get an abortion that trumps the rights of the unborn potential life and the state's interest in protecting same. While the word "privacy " is not used it is essential to and inherent in the First, Fourth, Fifth , Eighth , Ninth and arguably the Tenth Amendments as well as the Fourteenth. Loving v. Virginia will remain in full force and effect regardless of whether or not the SCOTUS overturns Roe. So will Griswold v. Connecticut despite the hysterical ravings of Eric Swalwell. It will have zero effect on gay rights or Brown vs. Board of Ed. despite Joy Behar's handwringing and mythmaking.

Personally, I don't think the Court should completely overrule Roe. For one thing they can easily uphold the Mississippi law without overturning Roe. But if they do the issue will go back to the states and be decided by ELECTED representatives. The same people who decide whether or not to have a death penalty ; or legal pot ; or what the driving age should be. There is an argument that we could have and should have avoided a LOT of the rancor and a lot of litigation if the SCOTUS had left abortion to the states in the first place. At the time Roe was decided most states had either legalized abortion or were considering doing so. No less an authority than Ruth Bader Ginsberg said that it would have been better if The Court had left the issue to the elected state legislatures instead of legislating itself. If you actually READ the Roe vs. Wade decision it is a classic case of legislating from the bench and usurpation of state authority.

[Eric Stoner]

Are you kidding?! The real outrage is that one of our political parties, as well as the majority of Supreme Court justices, have a complete disregard for the Constitution, the rule of law, the will of the American people, as well as the health and lives of young women. Five of the six conservative members of the Supreme Court were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. At least three were confirmed by senators representing less than half of the American people. We now have a party that represents a minority of Americans, consisting mostly of old, white Christians, imposing their backward, ignorant religious beliefs on the rest of America.

No I am NOT kidding . The leaker had no right to disclose a First Draft opinion on a PENDING case not officially decided yet. It was clearly a power play designed to influence the Court's decision. Within an hour or so after its publication there were Pro-Choice demonstrators with pre-printed signs in front of the 'Supreme Court. Clearly there was coordination between the leaker and those demonstrators.

Regardless of the issue , the ends do not justify the means. According to the Justices themselves , former law clerks and every law professor I can think of, trust and confidentiality are essential to the proper functioning of the SCOTUS. What the leaker did was both unethical and illegal under Federal law. It constitutes obstruction of justice, deliberate mishandling of government documents and conversion of public documents to private use. The FIRST thing new law clerks at the Supreme Court are told is that they have a duty to preserve and protect confidentiality on ALL cases before the Court and that violating their public trust will result in their firing and disbarment. There are NO exceptions. The leaker has damaged the Supreme Court in general and their fellow clerks in particular. How can they be trusted now ? That's assuming it was a clerk and not one of the justices. That would truly be a disaster and would be almost irreparable.

[Eric Stoner]

It was believed, not too recently, that it would have been impossible for the court to overturn precedent, but here we are.

Extremists will push it, and Democrats keep laying down and taking it. Name a more iconic duo for full fledged fascism.

Says who ? Precedent is entitled to respect and should not be overturned lightly. However we should all be glad that Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education. If Roe is overturned it will not be the first time the SCOTUS has overturned a previous case.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Says who ? Precedent is entitled to respect and should not be overturned lightly. However we should all be glad that Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education. If Roe is overturned it will not be the first time the SCOTUS has overturned a previous case.

No, Plessy v Ferguson clearly stated that

In 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in Plessy v. Ferguson that racially segregated public facilities were legal, so long as the facilities for Black people and whites were equal.

While Brown vs Board of Education

In the decision, issued on May 17, 1954, Warren wrote that “in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place,” as segregated schools are “inherently unequal.” As a result, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs were being “deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”

So they did not overturn settled rulings.

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/brown-v-board-of-education-of-topeka

[Eric Stoner]

No, Plessy v Ferguson clearly stated that

[/FONT][/COLOR]

While Brown vs Board of Education



So they did not overturn settled rulings.

[/FONT][/COLOR]https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/brown-v-board-of-education-of-topeka

WHAT ????

That is a unique reading of Brown vs. Board that I have NEVER heard from anyone else. Brown specifically said
( and YOU quoted ) : " in the field of public education the doctrine of separate but equal has no place ". It was followed by a line of cases that invalidated segregation in all sorts of places and contexts. Prior to Brown, the Court went after places like law schools that did not admit blacks when the state in question ( Missouri ) did not have a law school for blacks. They enforced equality when it was shown that facilities were NOT equal. Brown said for the first time since 1896 that the whole doctrine was invalid. Not just that educational facilities were glaringly unequal.

[Sam38g]

It's not a final opinion. Most observers expected a trimming of Roe v. Wade without a total overturning. If it is the final decision then abortion will once again be a State not Federal issue. Some states will be more restrictive. Some will ban abortion outright. Some will expand abortion rights beyond Roe i.e. any abortion , any time for any reason. Groups like PP will probably organize trips from states that ban or restrict to those with greater availability. It will not be the end of the world but it will be different. If, as the polls say, most Americans want to retain Roe in whole or in part then abortion will remain a hot button issue at the state level.

The real outrage is with whoever leaked the draft opinion. He or she should be ferreted out , fired and disbarred. They already have a few prime suspects.

So your main worry is about a leak and NOT all the lives of women killed by their domestic partner which greatly goes up when she is pregnant? In fact, this leak shows that there is a major problem that all the Supreme court is working on SHOULD BE PUBLIC. In order to prevent hidden agendas which 80 percent of Americans are against an abortion ban. This is empowering the SC to create laws NOT interpret them.

No one was killed or murdered in leaking that document, but that is a way worse crime than destroying millions of women's lives. In Texas, a woman can be convicted of murder & put in prison for having a miscarriage. Which is why Roe vs Wade needs to be upheld all across this country & just not in a few states.

You leave out how minors who can't cross state lines will be forced to carry their rapist baby.

[Sam38g]

Says who ? Precedent is entitled to respect and should not be overturned lightly. However we should all be glad that Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education. If Roe is overturned it will not be the first time the SCOTUS has overturned a previous case.

Shows what men do in secret is pure evil.

[eagle2]

Hmmmm. Not quite. Almost everyone agrees that there IS a "right to privacy". The issue is whether it includes a right to get an abortion that trumps the rights of the unborn potential life and the state's interest in protecting same. While the word "privacy " is not used it is essential to and inherent in the First, Fourth, Fifth , Eighth , Ninth and arguably the Tenth Amendments as well as the Fourteenth. Loving v. Virginia will remain in full force and effect regardless of whether or not the SCOTUS overturns Roe. So will Griswold v. Connecticut despite the hysterical ravings of Eric Swalwell. It will have zero effect on gay rights or Brown vs. Board of Ed. despite Joy Behar's handwringing and mythmaking.

There is no right of the unborn potential life. There were never any rights for fetuses written into the Constitution. The writers of the Constitution did not consider a fetus to be a person. Abortions were legal in every one of the original states. The only reason why abortions were made illegal was because at the time, abortions were not safe. It wasn't until fairly recently that religious conservatives began advocating that unborn fetuses should have more rights than the women carrying them.

Personally, I don't think the Court should completely overrule Roe. For one thing they can easily uphold the Mississippi law without overturning Roe. But if they do the issue will go back to the states and be decided by ELECTED representatives. The same people who decide whether or not to have a death penalty ; or legal pot ; or what the driving age should be. There is an argument that we could have and should have avoided a LOT of the rancor and a lot of litigation if the SCOTUS had left abortion to the states in the first place. At the time Roe was decided most states had either legalized abortion or were considering doing so. No less an authority than Ruth Bader Ginsberg said that it would have been better if The Court had left the issue to the elected state legislatures instead of legislating itself. If you actually READ the Roe vs. Wade decision it is a classic case of legislating from the bench and usurpation of state authority.

Individual rights should not be decided by ELECTED representatives. It should be decided by the individuals themselves. State legislatures should not have control over women's bodies. If you actually READ the Roe vs. Wade decision, it clearly documents how unborn fetuses were never given personhood. Even today, there is practically unanimous agreement that an unborn fetus is not legally considered a person. A pregnant woman cannot declare an unborn fetus as a dependent on her tax forms. When the census is taken, unborn fetuses are not considered a person. It is only in the case of abortion, where religious conservatives believe unborn fetuses should have full legal rights. The entire basis of this belief is not about concern for the unborn fetus. It's their belief that their god does not approve of abortions. Many of these same people have little regard for life inside or outside the womb in every other situation. They consistently oppose funding for nutrition, healthcare and housing for poor pregnant women and poor mothers. Mississippi, the state that is currently going to court to overturn 'Roe vs. Wade' has the highest infant mortality rate in the country.