The Roe Countdown

When will Roe v Wade be overturned

  • Before 31 December 2020

    Votes: 20 18.3%

  • Before 31 December 2022

    Votes: 27 24.8%

  • Before 31 December 2024

    Votes: 9 8.3%

  • SCOTUS will not pick a case up

    Votes: 16 14.7%

  • SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn

    Votes: 37 33.9%
  • Total voters
    109
Status
Not open for further replies.

The Atheist

The Grammar Tyrant
The Atheist
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
36,228
When does Roe v Wade get thrown out?

With a SCOTUS now built on solidly anti-abortion conservatives, I can see a 5-4 vote devolving legislation to states happening in the very near future.

I reckon the Red Team will be looking for a judgement before the 2020 election, so my pick is within one year. I believe there's a case of one state in the courts right now, so should be an easy one for SCOTUS to pick up, since every judge so far has denied legislative attempts to block abortion.

Pence's words - "Roe will be overturned within our lifetime" looking fairly prophetic about now.

Anyone with evidence Trump paid for an abortion needs to step right up, because I'd see that as the only chance left to prevent the absurd attacks on women's rights by white men.
 
You seem to be happy with the idea of the US toally going down the tube.
Just remember this:The undertow of that happening will impact a lot of countries..including Kiwiland.
 
Given the tremendous pressure the Trump Judges are under to deliver this one thing, I do see a real risk for Roe v. Wade within the year.
 
dudalb said:
You seem to be happy with the idea of the US toally going down the tube.
Just remember this:The undertow of that happening will impact a lot of countries..including Kiwiland.
Click to expand...

How on earth do you get that from the OP?

While you are at it, please reveal how reversing Roe vs Wade will impact other countries.
 
The Atheist said:
Anyone with evidence Trump paid for an abortion needs to step right up, because I'd see that as the only chance left to prevent the absurd attacks on women's rights by white men.
Click to expand...

Why would that sort of thing change Kavanaugh's mind?
 
Drugs are illegal, people seek illegal drugs.
Abortion is illegal, costly and discrete abortions will forever go unreported.

Changing a law won't change what people desire.
 
If this really happens, I think I'd stop having sex. Now, a pro-life rightwinger would probably say to that, "Ha! You're proving my point. You skanks are frivolous with your reproductive planning because you can always just get an abortion!" Yeah, I've heard it all before. But that's not quite it.

See, I would really hate to have to get an abortion. I believe it would cause me extreme shame, psychological distress, etc. on top of the obvious concerns about cost, traveling to the sort of clinic that gets targeted for violence and picketing, and safety. It would practically be the end of the world for me, at least temporarily, if I had to do that. I'd do anything I reasonably could to avoid an abortion. There's only one thing I can think of that would be worse - and that's having a kid. (For me, personally, I mean. I've got nothing against kids. I've got something against myself as a mother.)

The idea of abortion is that unpleasant to me, BUT it's still there as a last-ditch safety net in the unlikely event that birth control fails. Remove that safety net, and the risk of BC failure suddenly seems more real. .00001% chance of failure? Yeah, I don't like those odds if it means I have to grow a kid inside me and bring them into the world. I can't risk that. Any nunneries accepting new nuns?

Also, TA, why are you borderline gloating in your OP?
 
lionking said:
How on earth do you get that from the OP?

While you are at it, please reveal how reversing Roe vs Wade will impact other countries.
Click to expand...

You don't agree that the OP almost has a giddy tone to Roe being overturned? Up until his statement about taking away women's rights I would have guessed that he was almost excited that they're being taken away.
 
8enotto said:
Drugs are illegal, people seek illegal drugs.
Abortion is illegal, costly and discrete abortions will forever go unreported.

Changing a law won't change what people desire.
Click to expand...
But desire isn't the only factor in what people actually do. Economists understand demand as desire in addition to purchasing power. Doesn't matter how much you want a Tesla if you can't come up with the money.

Place significant obstacles before those who desire an abortion, and there will be fewer abortions. That black market abortion will be more difficult and dangerous, deterring some. Flying to New York for an abortion will cost more, and raise some questions that you might not want raised. Not everyone will manage.

Are there more pot smokers in Colorado since legalization? Take a guess.
 
There's one weird question for me here.

If I understand history and law correctly (a big if) in order to get a law evaluated by the supreme court, you need an individual convicted under that law, backed by a very well funded team of lawyers, to appeal their conviction and pass it through various higher courts.

It seems to me any person convicted under this law is highly unlikely to be against abortion. And any marginally intelligent person should know that rising this case up to the supreme court would be a very negative thing for abortion rights.

Where do they find someone convicted under this new law to be their case? Would they get an anti-abortion activist to fake violating these statutes so they could arrest them and bring it up the chain?

I know how long it generally takes to find a legit case to challenge a constitutional principle. I'm having a hard time seeing how they get someone who has to be against this law to do their work of validating it.
 
dudalb said:
You seem to be happy with the idea of the US toally going down the tube.
Just remember this:The undertow of that happening will impact a lot of countries..including Kiwiland.
Click to expand...
isissxn said:
Also, TA, why are you borderline gloating in your OP?
Click to expand...
plague311 said:
You don't agree that the OP almost has a giddy tone to Roe being overturned? Up until his statement about taking away women's rights I would have guessed that he was almost excited that they're being taken away.
Click to expand...
You guys are really reading a lot into the OP that's not there.

All I see in TA's post is acknowledgement of the stark reality that the arch-conservative scum are close to a win on the issue of abortion, a win that will bring misery to millions of women in this country.
 
Babbylonian said:
You guys are really reading a lot into the OP that's not there.

All I see in TA's post is acknowledgement of the stark reality that the arch-conservative scum are close to a win on the issue of abortion, a win that will bring misery to millions of women in this country.
Click to expand...

Well come to think of it, TA always has a sort of boisterous style, so I'll acknowledge I may have misunderstood the OP's tone. I'm very sour where this topic is concerned. I can't stand my ******* country right now.
 
I voted the first option, which is the worst case. Once it happens, the party of states rights and limited federal government to outlaw it in states that continue to allow it.
 
Cavemonster said:
There's one weird question for me here.

If I understand history and law correctly (a big if) in order to get a law evaluated by the supreme court, you need an individual convicted under that law, backed by a very well funded team of lawyers, to appeal their conviction and pass it through various higher courts.

It seems to me any person convicted under this law is highly unlikely to be against abortion. And any marginally intelligent person should know that rising this case up to the supreme court would be a very negative thing for abortion rights.

Where do they find someone convicted under this new law to be their case? Would they get an anti-abortion activist to fake violating these statutes so they could arrest them and bring it up the chain?

I know how long it generally takes to find a legit case to challenge a constitutional principle. I'm having a hard time seeing how they get someone who has to be against this law to do their work of validating it.
Click to expand...
A couple of things:
1. The first person (people) convicted under a new abortion ban would have their appeals (and probably their initial defense) fully funded by pro-choice organizations. I know I'd see to it that what little money I can spare would find its way to that cause.
2. The appeals process can be expedited so that things happen faster if the need for urgency can be demonstrated (capital punishment cases being examples). Given the number of people affected here, the clock under which everyone would be operating (if someone is being prevented from getting an abortion that was previously legal), and the enormous national interest, I think a case could definitely end up in front of the Supreme Court sooner rather than later.

I can't be certain that RvW will fall (a little hope can't hurt), but there will have to be a ruling on Alabama's outright abortion ban and it should happen fairly fast to avoid disrupting lives unnecessarily...though "should" and "will" are obviously quite different.
 
Cavemonster said:
There's one weird question for me here.

If I understand history and law correctly (a big if) in order to get a law evaluated by the supreme court, you need an individual convicted under that law, backed by a very well funded team of lawyers, to appeal their conviction and pass it through various higher courts.

It seems to me any person convicted under this law is highly unlikely to be against abortion. And any marginally intelligent person should know that rising this case up to the supreme court would be a very negative thing for abortion rights.

Where do they find someone convicted under this new law to be their case? Would they get an anti-abortion activist to fake violating these statutes so they could arrest them and bring it up the chain?

I know how long it generally takes to find a legit case to challenge a constitutional principle. I'm having a hard time seeing how they get someone who has to be against this law to do their work of validating it.
Click to expand...

It can also get there through suit. A provider or a person wanting an abortion might have standing to sue.
 
Babbylonian said:
A couple of things:
1. The first person (people) convicted under a new abortion ban would have their appeals (and probably their initial defense) fully funded by pro-choice organizations. I know I'd see to it that what little money I can spare would find its way to that cause.
Click to expand...


Sure, but a pro-choice organization would be trying NOT to escalate the case to the supreme court given the current court makeup. Wouldn't they? That's what gets me. Putting a case in front of the SC at this point is only in the interests of the pro-lifers.

I can't imagine a pro-choice group right now feeling excited to bring this law to the SC and be responsible for overturning RvW.

Cases that get to the SC over things this fraught tend to be there because the group that's funding the whole thing imagines there's a good chance to set a precedent for their desired outcome. Since the risk is opening the flood gates to banning abortion everywhere and the chance of getting a positive outcome seems low. I can't imagine a sincere pro choice org wanting to do that.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't have to be a criminal matter. One can sue the government to overturn a law because it is an undue burden.

This is where you get into "legitimate public interest" and "least restrictive means to achieve" kinds of arguments.

Nobody got arrested under Prop 8 in order to make marriage equality a thing, for example.
 
Cavemonster said:
Sure, but a pro-choice organization would be trying NOT to escalate the case to the supreme court given the current court makeup. Wouldn't they? That's what gets me. Putting a case in front of the SC at this point is only in the interests of the pro-lifers.

I can't imagine a pro-choice group right now feeling excited to bring this law to the SC and be responsible for overturning RvW.
Click to expand...
There are 2 issues...

- If an anti-abortion law is passed, even if its unconstitutional, it still can have an effect. So, if pro-choice groups try to delay having the case heard, women still have their rights taken away. Basically a bad law that hasn't been challenged yet in the supreme court is almost as bad as a bad law that the court rules as constitutional

- There may be concerns that, while the conservatives do have a 5-4 majority on the courts, its possible that one or more of the conservative judges might actually do what they claim and respect precedent. However, if they wait, the republicans may be able to get additional supreme court judges appointed (giving a 6-3 majority). So, better to challenge the law when you have a slim chance of victory than wait and have no chance.
 
Cavemonster said:
Sure, but a pro-choice organization would be trying NOT to escalate the case to the supreme court given the current court makeup. Wouldn't they? That's what gets me. Putting a case in front of the SC at this point is only in the interests of the pro-lifers.
Click to expand...
I don't think you really get it. Until the law is overturned, it's the law and people violating that law will go to prison or be otherwise punished.Leaving it unchallenged doesn't make the law go away, nor does it make it ineffective. The only potential positive would be that other states might be reluctant to do their own bans, but we can already see that this isn't true.

I'll break it down further:
1. Dr. <X> is convicted of performing an abortion.
2. Dr. <X> is sentenced to <Y> years in prison.

Now, right here, with no appeals, Dr. <X> is spending time in prison. Dr. <X> will for good reason find that situation unacceptable and will therefore instruct their attorney(s) to file an appeal on constitutional grounds citing RvW and move on to step 3.

3. The state appeals court will uphold or overturn the conviction.
4a. If upheld, Dr. <X> will appeal to the federal level.
4b. If overturned, the state will appeal to the federal level.

5. The federal district court will affirm or overturn the previous court's decision.
5a/b. Same as above, but the appeal will be to the Supreme Court.

Bottom line: The law has to be fought, not only on principle but because as of this moment the law is unconstitutional as determined in Roe v. Wade.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
It doesn't have to be a criminal matter. One can sue the government to overturn a law because it is an undue burden.

This is where you get into "legitimate public interest" and "least restrictive means to achieve" kinds of arguments.

Nobody got arrested under Prop 8 in order to make marriage equality a thing, for example.
Click to expand...
Indeed. The bottom line is that the Alabama law, under the current system, is unconstitutional on its face.
 
Yup, I think Roe v Wade is going to be toast.

I never once thought that could be a possibility in the 21st century, until recently.

As for the timeline, I think it depends on when Ruth Bader Ginsburg can no longer fill her seat. The hope is that she'll outlast Trump, but taking her age and health into consideration, that's not likely if he gets another term.

I think there's another middle-ground supreme court justice that's coming up for retirement soon too, besides RBG?

If that happens during Trump's time, American women haven't got a hope in hell.

Expect all hell to break loose soon after.
 
The Atheist said:
Anyone with evidence Trump paid for an abortion needs to step right up, because I'd see that as the only chance left to prevent the absurd attacks on women's rights by white men.
Click to expand...
d4m10n said:
Why would that sort of thing change Kavanaugh's mind?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter to Trump supporters. Nor would it matter to the Kavanaughs and Republican politicians of the world. It would be news fodder for a few days and then everyone would move on to the next thing.
 
Certainly Roe vs Wade will be overturned sometime soon.

At the time of the election I said that it was the issue that put Trump over the line. You only need to look at the margins in the swing states compared to the evangelical populations in those states. Add that there was a SCOTUS vacancy and at least one more likely in the next presidential term and given that the SCOTUS balance is something of an obsession with evangelicals, then it seems very likely that this played a big part.

I can't believe that the appointees don't know what is expected of them.

I am expecting a few anti LGBT measures too

This will probably be a factor in 2020 too, so the US will have a Trump flavoured SCOTUS for the next generation at least.
 
The people of Alabama are going to be overbreeding. They will spill out into the rest of the country like multiplying hamsters.
 
AnonyMoose said:
As for the timeline, I think it depends on when Ruth Bader Ginsburg can no longer fill her seat. The hope is that she'll outlast Trump, but taking her age and health into consideration, that's not likely if he gets another term.
Click to expand...
And that fact alone will deliver Trump a new term. The margin in Wisconsin was around the size of the weekly attendance of a mega church in that state and there are a lot of mega churches there. And they aren't even the majority of evangelicals.

And then there are the Catholics.
 
8enotto said:
Drugs are illegal, people seek illegal drugs.
Abortion is illegal, costly and discrete abortions will forever go unreported.

Changing a law won't change what people desire.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that overturning Roe v. Wade will not make abortion illegal. It will simply return the matter to the states. Before 1973, abortion was basically legal in several states, and that was the general direction law and public opinion were heading. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will remain legal in the states that make it so -- the Northeast, the West Coast, etc. -- and will be punishable to different degrees under state laws in the South. The consequence is that women with enough money will be able to take a little trip to get the services they need, and the poor will either have babies they don't want and can't care for, or they will head for the back-alley butchers.

What a mess.
 
Babbylonian said:
I don't think you really get it. Until the law is overturned, it's the law and people violating that law will go to prison or be otherwise punished.Leaving it unchallenged doesn't make the law go away, nor does it make it ineffective. The only potential positive would be that other states might be reluctant to do their own bans, but we can already see that this isn't true.

I'll break it down further:
1. Dr. <X> is convicted of performing an abortion.
2. Dr. <X> is sentenced to <Y> years in prison.

Now, right here, with no appeals, Dr. <X> is spending time in prison. Dr. <X> will for good reason find that situation unacceptable and will therefore instruct their attorney(s) to file an appeal on constitutional grounds citing RvW and move on to step 3.

3. The state appeals court will uphold or overturn the conviction.
4a. If upheld, Dr. <X> will appeal to the federal level.
4b. If overturned, the state will appeal to the federal level.

5. The federal district court will affirm or overturn the previous court's decision.
5a/b. Same as above, but the appeal will be to the Supreme Court.

Bottom line: The law has to be fought, not only on principle but because as of this moment the law is unconstitutional as determined in Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...

The law has to be fought, but it doesn't seem to me that fighting it via a process that leads to the supreme court is a productive way to fight it if doing so leads to an overturning of precedent.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, just because the state would plan to appeal any court finding that overturned their law, does not mean that the appeal would be granted. There's a reason that not every case makes it to the supreme court.
 
Babbylonian said:
You guys are really reading a lot into the OP that's not there.

All I see in TA's post is acknowledgement of the stark reality that the arch-conservative scum are close to a win on the issue of abortion, a win that will bring misery to millions of women in this country.
Click to expand...

A lot of this is based on TA's past history; he has done a LOT of USA bashing in the past.
And, yeah, I think that repealing RvW would be a disaster;but it would be a political disaster for the GOP. They finally got what they wanted;and will find out it isnot what a lot of Amereicans want.
 
Cavemonster said:
The law has to be fought, but it doesn't seem to me that fighting it via a process that leads to the supreme court is a productive way to fight it if doing so leads to an overturning of precedent.

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, just because the state would plan to appeal any court finding that overturned their law, does not mean that the appeal would be granted. There's a reason that not every case makes it to the supreme court.
Click to expand...
It's pretty obvious that you're not a lawyer because there are generally three ways to overturn a state law in the US:

1. Appeal to the state legislature to repeal the law. That would clearly be ineffective here.
2. In states where available, ballot initiatives can be used. If the majority of the state supports the law, then that's going nowhere.
3. Appeal through the established court system, which ends at the Supreme Court.

If none of these are tried, then the state law is just the law and that's an unacceptable alternative.

But, again, you don't seem to understand that if the law isn't appealed through the system up to and in this case certainly including the Supreme Court, then Roe v. Wade might as well not even exist as precedent. States will ban abortion as they see fit and state-by-state misery ensues.
 
dudalb said:
A lot of this is based on TA's past history; he has done a LOT of USA bashing in the past.
And, yeah, I think that repealing RvW would be a disaster;but it would be a political disaster for the GOP. They finally got what they wanted;and will find out it isnot what a lot of Amereicans want.
Click to expand...
That's what they got with Trump, too. They don't seem to give a single **** what most Americans want.
 
Babbylonian said:
It's pretty obvious that you're not a lawyer because there are generally three ways to overturn a state law in the US:

1. Appeal to the state legislature to repeal the law. That would clearly be ineffective here.
2. In states where available, ballot initiatives can be used. If the majority of the state supports the law, then that's going nowhere.
3. Appeal through the established court system, which ends at the Supreme Court.

If none of these are tried, then the state law is just the law and that's an unacceptable alternative.

But, again, you don't seem to understand that if the law isn't appealed through the system up to and in this case certainly including the Supreme Court, then Roe v. Wade might as well not even exist as precedent. States will ban abortion as they see fit and state-by-state misery ensues.
Click to expand...

The whole idea of supreme court precedent is that it can be used by the court system below the SC to overturn laws without each and every law going all the way to the top.

If that weren't the case, there would be no value in precedent anyhow. The supreme court would then have no teeth because any time a law was overturned there, the state would just make a new law that effectively did the same thing.
 
Cavemonster said:
The whole idea of supreme court precedent is that it can be used by the court system below the SC to overturn laws without each and every law going all the way to the top.

If that weren't the case, there would be no value in precedent anyhow. The supreme court would then have no teeth because any time a law was overturned there, the state would just make a new law that effectively did the same thing.
Click to expand...
Yeah. In an ideal world (or at least a slightly better one), the lower courts would strike down the law and Alabama would say "Well, we lost that one, maybe next time." What makes you think that would happen?
 
Babbylonian said:
Yeah. In an ideal world (or at least a slightly better one), the lower courts would strike down the law and Alabama would say "Well, we lost that one, maybe next time." What makes you think that would happen?
Click to expand...

I don't believe that the state's tenacity by itself is the final word in whether an appeal is granted.
 
Cavemonster said:
I don't believe that the state's tenacity by itself is the final word in whether an appeal is granted.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Their lawyers will have their briefs ready to file. Of course they can and should be dismissed, but the premise of this thread is that a majority of justices on the Supreme Court are willing to trash Roe v. Wade as precedent.

If you don't accept that premise, fine, I hope you're right, but this is the journey upon which we in the US seem to be embarking. That the end looks inevitable is why the scum in Alabama felt emboldened to pass their **** law. If it turns out they were wrong (or misinformed), I will cheer the justices who slap them down.

The implication that there's some alternative to this process seems misguided. If you have an actual alternative, I'm sure everyone would love to know what that is.
 
Babbylonian said:
:rolleyes:

Their lawyers will have their briefs ready to file. Of course they can and should be dismissed, but the premise of this thread is that a majority of justices on the Supreme Court are willing to trash Roe v. Wade as precedent.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that several appeals need to be granted by lower courts first.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom