The Roe Countdown

The Atheist · 15th May 2019, 01:28 PM

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.

dudalb · 15th May 2019, 01:31 PM

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.

The Great Zaganza · 15th May 2019, 01:34 PM

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.

lionking · 15th May 2019, 01:35 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

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.

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.

d4m10n · 15th May 2019, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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.

Why would that sort of thing change Kavanaugh's mind?

8enotto · 15th May 2019, 01:38 PM

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.

William Parcher · 15th May 2019, 01:56 PM

Embryos that do not even exist are praying.

Butter! · 15th May 2019, 02:04 PM

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?

plague311 · 15th May 2019, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by lionking

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.

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.

mumblethrax · 15th May 2019, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by 8enotto

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.

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.

Cavemonster · 15th May 2019, 02:12 PM

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.

Babbylonian · 15th May 2019, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

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.

Originally Posted by isissxn

Also, TA, why are you borderline gloating in your OP?

Originally Posted by plague311

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.

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.

Butter! · 15th May 2019, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

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.

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.

Trebuchet · 15th May 2019, 02:20 PM

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.

Babbylonian · 15th May 2019, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

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.

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.

BobTheCoward · 15th May 2019, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

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.

It can also get there through suit. A provider or a person wanting an abortion might have standing to sue.

Cavemonster · 15th May 2019, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

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.

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.

Delphic Oracle · 15th May 2019, 02:48 PM

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.

Segnosaur · 15th May 2019, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

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.

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.

Babbylonian · 15th May 2019, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

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 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.

Babbylonian · 15th May 2019, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

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.

Indeed. The bottom line is that the Alabama law, under the current system, is unconstitutional on its face.

AnonyMoose · 15th May 2019, 03:03 PM

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.

Trebuchet · 15th May 2019, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Indeed. The bottom line is that the Alabama law, under the current system, is unconstitutional on its face.

At least until SCROTUS* get their hands on it....

*Supreme Court Republicans of the USA.

cosmicaug · 15th May 2019, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

When does Roe v Wade get thrown out?

Never. It would require the overturning of many decades old precedent and this cannot happen (as Sen. Susan Collins would be happy to remind you).

Puppycow · 15th May 2019, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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.

Originally Posted by d4m10n

Why would that sort of thing change Kavanaugh's mind?

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.

Robin · 15th May 2019, 03:47 PM

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.

William Parcher · 15th May 2019, 03:51 PM

The people of Alabama are going to be overbreeding. They will spill out into the rest of the country like multiplying hamsters.

Robin · 15th May 2019, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by AnonyMoose

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.

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.

Bob001 · 15th May 2019, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by William Parcher

The people of Alabama are going to be overbreeding. They will spill out into the rest of the country like multiplying hamsters.

Build the Wall!

Bob001 · 15th May 2019, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by 8enotto

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.

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.

William Parcher · 15th May 2019, 04:10 PM

We could egg the people of Alabama.

Cavemonster · 15th May 2019, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

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.

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.

dudalb · 15th May 2019, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

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.

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.

Babbylonian · 15th May 2019, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

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.

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.

Babbylonian · 15th May 2019, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

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.

That's what they got with Trump, too. They don't seem to give a single **** what most Americans want.

Cavemonster · 15th May 2019, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

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.

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.

Babbylonian · 15th May 2019, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

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.

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?

Cavemonster · 15th May 2019, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

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?

I don't believe that the state's tenacity by itself is the final word in whether an appeal is granted.

Babbylonian · 15th May 2019, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Cavemonster

I don't believe that the state's tenacity by itself is the final word in whether an appeal is granted.

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.

Cavemonster · 15th May 2019, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

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.

It's my understanding that several appeals need to be granted by lower courts first.

Before 31 December 2020	20	18.35%
Before 31 December 2022	27	24.77%
Before 31 December 2024	9	8.26%
SCOTUS will not pick a case up	16	14.68%
SCOTUS will pick it up and decline to overturn	37	33.94%
Voters: 109. You may not vote on this poll

15th May 2019, 01:28 PM	#1
The Atheist The Grammar Tyrant Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 34,492	The Roe Countdown 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.
	__________________ The point of equilibrium has passed; satire and current events are now indistinguishable.

15th May 2019, 01:34 PM	#3
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Photo Contest Winner Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 21,598	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.
	__________________ “Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.”

15th May 2019, 01:35 PM	#4
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 54,312	Originally Posted by dudalb 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. 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.
	__________________ A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill

15th May 2019, 01:37 PM	#5
d4m10n Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Mounts Farm Posts: 11,846	Originally Posted by The Atheist 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. Why would that sort of thing change Kavanaugh's mind?
	__________________ “Knowledge is power; France is Bacon.”

15th May 2019, 01:31 PM	#2
dudalb Suspended Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 60,126	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.

15th May 2019, 01:38 PM	#6
8enotto Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2018 Location: Mexico Posts: 3,153	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.

15th May 2019, 01:56 PM	#7
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,436	Embryos that do not even exist are praying.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

15th May 2019, 02:04 PM	#8
Butter! Rough Around the Edges Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Deep Storage Posts: 7,684	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?

15th May 2019, 02:04 PM	#9
plague311 Great minds think... Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Dakota Posts: 13,830	Originally Posted by lionking 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. 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.
	__________________ “There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss

15th May 2019, 02:05 PM	#10
mumblethrax Species traitor Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 3,950	Originally Posted by 8enotto 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. 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.

15th May 2019, 02:12 PM	#11
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,701	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.
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,701	__________________ The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON

15th May 2019, 02:12 PM	#12
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 14,057	Originally Posted by dudalb 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. Originally Posted by isissxn Also, TA, why are you borderline gloating in your OP? Originally Posted by plague311 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. 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.

15th May 2019, 02:15 PM	#13
Butter! Rough Around the Edges Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Deep Storage Posts: 7,684	Originally Posted by Babbylonian 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. 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.

15th May 2019, 02:20 PM	#14
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 38,281	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.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

15th May 2019, 02:30 PM	#15
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 14,057	Originally Posted by Cavemonster 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. 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.

15th May 2019, 02:37 PM	#16
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789	Originally Posted by Cavemonster 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. It can also get there through suit. A provider or a person wanting an abortion might have standing to sue.
BobTheCoward Banned Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 22,789

15th May 2019, 02:39 PM	#17
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,701	Originally Posted by Babbylonian 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. 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.
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,701	__________________ The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON Last edited by Cavemonster; 15th May 2019 at 02:42 PM.

15th May 2019, 02:48 PM	#18
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 6,407	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.

15th May 2019, 02:54 PM	#19
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 20,474	Originally Posted by Cavemonster 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. 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.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppins Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

15th May 2019, 02:56 PM	#21
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 14,057	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle 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. Indeed. The bottom line is that the Alabama law, under the current system, is unconstitutional on its face.

15th May 2019, 03:03 PM	#22
AnonyMoose Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2018 Location: Land of the Frozen Chosen Posts: 1,022	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.
	__________________ "Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." ~ Emo Phillips

15th May 2019, 03:04 PM	#23
Trebuchet Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Port Townsend, Washington Posts: 38,281	Originally Posted by Babbylonian Indeed. The bottom line is that the Alabama law, under the current system, is unconstitutional on its face. At least until SCROTUS* get their hands on it.... *Supreme Court Republicans of the USA.
	__________________ Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.

15th May 2019, 03:04 PM	#24
cosmicaug Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,927	Originally Posted by The Atheist When does Roe v Wade get thrown out? Never. It would require the overturning of many decades old precedent and this cannot happen (as Sen. Susan Collins would be happy to remind you).
	__________________ -- August Pamplona

15th May 2019, 03:22 PM	#25
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Yokohama, Japan Posts: 28,687	Originally Posted by The Atheist 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. Originally Posted by d4m10n Why would that sort of thing change Kavanaugh's mind? 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.
	__________________ A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare

15th May 2019, 03:47 PM	#26
Robin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 14,971	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.
	__________________ We all hate poverty, war, and injustice Unlike the rest of you squares. Tom Lehrer - Folk Song Army

15th May 2019, 03:51 PM	#27
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,436	The people of Alabama are going to be overbreeding. They will spill out into the rest of the country like multiplying hamsters.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

15th May 2019, 03:51 PM	#28
Robin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 14,971	Originally Posted by AnonyMoose 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. 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.
	__________________ We all hate poverty, war, and injustice Unlike the rest of you squares. Tom Lehrer - Folk Song Army

15th May 2019, 04:02 PM	#29
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	Originally Posted by William Parcher The people of Alabama are going to be overbreeding. They will spill out into the rest of the country like multiplying hamsters. Build the Wall!

15th May 2019, 04:09 PM	#30
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,613	Originally Posted by 8enotto 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. 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.

15th May 2019, 04:10 PM	#31
William Parcher Show me the monkey! Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 26,436	We could egg the people of Alabama.
	__________________ Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.

15th May 2019, 04:11 PM	#32
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,701	Originally Posted by Babbylonian 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. 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.
Cavemonster Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 6,701	__________________ The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon. -G.K. CHESTERTON

15th May 2019, 04:25 PM	#33
dudalb Suspended Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 60,126	Originally Posted by Babbylonian 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. 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.

15th May 2019, 04:26 PM	#34
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 14,057	Originally Posted by Cavemonster 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. 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.

15th May 2019, 04:29 PM	#35
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 14,057	Originally Posted by dudalb 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. That's what they got with Trump, too. They don't seem to give a single **** what most Americans want.