“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.
“No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending.”
Here is the full draft.
If the court upholds Mississippi’s law, which seems to be indicated, that state will allow no exceptions for rape and incest!
The USA would become just the fourth major country to tighten abortion controls since 1994, joining Poland, Nicaragua and El Salvador.
I do not belive in abortion but Im saddened this issue has gone from a belief based to politic matter.
I see this doing nothing more than further diving our country in every possible way.
MidCon, the minute you start telling someone else what to do, that makes it political. It only ever “was” belief-based to the extent that there was no disagreement among peoples’ beliefs
Interesting how the liberals want parents to have the right to choose whether or not to kill their unborn children, but not what they are taught in school. Can one of you socialists please explain how a child “transitions” from property of the woman to property of the state? I’m behind in my Karl Marx studies.
They have the right to teach children what they want. It’s called homeschooling. Keep in mind the ability to teach is a skill and many people don’t have it.
Or they might have a parent like Terence Howard who firmly believes 1×1=2.
People who can’t “do, teach, and people who can’t teach, teach gym. So long as a parents tax dollars pays the teachers salary, teachers will teach what their employers (the taxpayers), tell them to.
So if a majority of parents decided that the American Civil War was about states rights and not slavery, is that what should be taught?
Terrence Howard is a taxpayer and a wealthy one at that. Should he get to demand that teachers teach his views on mathematics? I can just imagine a class full of impressionable children sitting there while the teacher drones about the Mesopotamian Times Table Conspiracy.
🙄
Yeah that was my facial expression after reading Howard’s mathematical proof. He also has some unconventional thoughts on physics as well. At least he isn’t a flat earther.
Nevertheless, he’s still a taxpayer with 5 kids and I can only assume you’re completely fine with him dictating what teachers should be teaching.
Please tell me how the typical parent can give any meaningful contribution to telling a teacher what mathematical skills will be needed in the progression from elementary school to college level courses?
Tell me what insight the typical parent will have in telling a physics teacher what needs to be covered?
What insight will they have in literary analysis?
Or the myriad of circumstances that lead to the rise of democratic socialism in post-Cold War Europe?
The typical parent is not an expert in content and has no idea of the scope or sequence of most high school classes. People complain about the dumbing down of America.
We put parents fully in charge of what is taught, and the coming of the Idiocracy will be hastened by several generations.
Nice whataboutism, Steverino. Also, can you tell me why a woman should be forced to bear a child against her will? That’s a good question too.
You haven’t worded the question correctly. The question is whether a child is solely a member of his family, or whether he is also a member of society. The purpose of an education system is to teach him how to be the latter. It is the parents’ job to take care of the former.
I always hear ignorant parents say, “These are my children, and this is how I want them educated.” No. Those kids are solely “your” kids only if they never leave the house. If you promise me that they will stay in that house until they die and not kill anyone through the windows, then you can teach them whatever spooky, evil, ignorant shit you like. But as long as they share the streets and public spaces with the rest of us, they are OUR children, not just yours, and that’s why we try to educate them about the fact that societies require different people with different world-views to live together, to try to understand one another, and to build a better world together through co-operation and common values.
Our society has really changed. The people of my parents’ generation were so proud that their kids knew more than they did, and that they learned to think for themselves. Free thought and objective truth-based educations were an important part of what they thought they were fighting for in Europe and the Pacific. My dad always said, “I wish I could go to school with you and get the learning experiences you can get today. You’ve gone so far beyond me.” In contrast, many of today’s parents want their own personal knowledge and world-view to be the limit of their children’s development, which of course means that society can only regress.
In the very long run, our path through the immense forest of knowledge should lead to progress, but that can be hard to see when surrounded by people who think that the entire forest consists solely of the trees they can see.
Once again, that is a point of view I very much agree with. Thanks, UncleScoopy.
Heh. What you have described is what in economics speak is called playing a zero-sum game. I like your description much better!
And this is one of the major philosophical disagreements between conservatives and liberals. I live here, I pay my taxes, I follow the law or face the consequences. However, You don’t have a single claim to a single hair on my kids heads. They are mine. my property, my family, and my material possessions. I’ll support your “society” if your “society” offers me goods in exchange for my money. I’ll share resources that we both chip in for in the interest of peaceful coexistence. However, that doesn’t grant you any rights of ownership or control over my possessions. I’m glad that you value your education. Good for you. I agree on objective facts being taught in school. However, I never asked, approved, or allowed you or anyone else to teach my kids to be a part of your “society”. I’ll raise them to pay taxes and follow the law or face the consequences. Outside of that, they can choose to be part of your “society” or they can choose to live freely and independently. That’s their right and their choice. It’s not a schools place to do anything except give them the information they need to get into a good college so that they can get a good job. If they happen to love math and decide to pursue it as a career, then that’s their choice. This is why liberals have gender studies degrees and other useless liberal arts educations. They actually believe that the purpose of school is education as opposed to training to be successful. That’s why you will all always cry that you don’t get yours in a capitalistic society because financial success doesn’t correlate to grades in your 17th century French poetry class. Granted I got A’s in school without really trying so I can understand why your academic success is so important to your identity.
“However, You don’t have a single claim to a single hair on my kids heads. They are mine. my property, my family, and my material possessions.”
No they aren’t. If you abuse them, society needs to step in. If you are mentally incapable, society needs to step in. And so on.
The point you are missing is that your children are also equal members of society, and are equally entitled to its benefits and protections.
The primary purpose of an educational system is the growth of the society itself, not of the individuals. Societies are like living entities – they have a survival instinct. They create institutions for their betterment. Many believe that the growth of society is achieved through the growth of individuals, but there is not universal agreement on that point.
Society also has a responsibility to its members. Your children are part of society, not just of your family. If you abuse them, society can, should and will take them from you. It is not your prerogative to do do.
Similarly, society needs to assure that they can function in the world. If you go and live on a deserted island outside of national borders, they are not our concern. But as long as they share the space with us, they can’t go shooting out windows, spreading diseases, ignoring speed limits, robbing banks, or any other anti-social activities. That’s how societies work. All of us have to learn the process of socialization particular to our environment, and that is part of the function of the educational system, arguably its most important function. Humans have made so much progress only because they build upon everyone else’s knowledge and experience and learn how to co-operate with others. That’s essential to progress.
If every parent limits children to what the parents know and think, then society is either in stasis or regression. There’s no philosophy there. Just math.
Of course we have a philosophical difference. I don’t want my children and grandchildren to be limited to my world-view. I want them to be exposed to the greatest ideas man has ever conceived, and perhaps synthesize that into even greater ideas. I don’t have any interest in poetry, but if one of them becomes a poet, that’d be fine. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in my philosophy. Or yours.
I always respect your point of view because unlike others, you actually make arguments instead of resorting to insults. I also enjoy your blog (obviously). What I meant is that the concept of “society” is very different to a conservative and a liberal. Reality is very different to a conservative and a liberal. That is why I referenced, “your society” in quotes. The roles, responsibilities, priorities, concerns, and even reality differ from person to person let alone ideology to ideology. I don’t want schools teaching anyone else’s view of what society is or what society means. I clearly stated that they must follow the law or face the consequences. However, I want as minimal intervention on shaping world views as possible from government bureaucrats and people on the government payroll. Let them learn the basics from a shared resource like schools and then let them find and explore the “greatest ideas man has ever conceived” through their own inspired journeys.. From experience, I found school to be a waste of time. It was boring, easy, and limiting. Everything useful I have learned has been through self exploration, experience, and love of knowledge. I charted my own educational path outside the confines of the state determined curriculum of mediocrity. School is a means to an end. It separates and elevates the intelligent, talented, hardworking and ambitious. It offers opportunity to the next rung of the ladder of success. I don’t see value in school other than ensure basic level of understanding of reading, writing, arithmetic, and as a process to identify the future leaders amongst us and give them tools to continue on that journey. The film DeadPoetsSociety is an excellent example of this. I’m surprised it hasn’t been cancelled yet .
I agree with parts of what you say here. Which is what makes it dangerous. In the main, it’s adjacent to criminal mentality. You’re why we need so many damned laws.
We’re forced to try & codify common decency. It doesn’t even work. If we had the balls, we’d retrace our successful animal husbandry, that bred dogs from wolves, in order to ameliorate a truly American citizenry. Which, by the way, was a kind of genocide. But, you know, needs must. We do need good citizens. I doubt our brain-drain of tech talent from Russia will be enough. It’s still a richer vein to tap than your lot.
Too bad I don’t have the time nor the energy today to give you a fuller & more cogent response than this. But I don’t, so I won’t. I hope someone else will come along.
Because I don’t like the thought that you’re going to walk away thinking anyone here thinks you “won” any of these little skirmishes.
I’m assuming you’re in favor of child support payments beginning at conception, right? After all, if unborn embryos, regardless of development, are people, isn’t that the logical conclusion?
I already said I’m pro choice but if they decide to keep the baby, then absolutely child support should begin at conception. That’s accountability and responsibility.
It’s a leak of a drafted document. Votes can change. It’s not final until it’s released and read outside the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Roberts, if he joins the supposed 5 vote majority, can mitigate the reach of its impact by writing the majority opinion.
Whoever leaked it should be disbarred or impeached. It’s a huge breach of the institution. Educated guess is a law clerk leaked it.
Sure. Do you doubt it is what the Supreme Court is going to do, though? I mean, yes, they COULD change their minds, but do you think that is at all likely? I mean, when it comes to Kavanaugh and Barrett, this is the kind of thing they were put on the Court to do.
Actually, Kavanaugh is surprising. He clerked for Anthony Kennedy; he’s said to hold similar views. He is the only male of his household. He only has daughters; fathers with only daughters tend to lean pro-choice. If any of the current five change their mind, It’ll be Kavanaugh.
The leak likely occurred to lock in a Justice who was wavering in his support of the Alito decision. That could well be Kavanaugh. If any of the five change their vote, they would rightly fear for their and their family’s safety.
More likely Ginni Thomas leaked it…
The way opinions are assigned at the Supreme Court is as follows. If the Chief Justice is in the majority, he assigns the opinion. If he is not in the majority, the most senior justice who is in the majority assigns the opinion. If Roberts was not in the majority, that means Thomas assigned the opinion to Alito. I have heard it suggested that Thomas assigned the opinion to Alito so that he could file a concurrence arguing that abortion should be illegal nationwide as a fetus should be treated as a person under the Equal Protection Clause. We will have to wait for the Court to actually issue the actual opinion to find out if that’s the case.
While I thought it was possible, Roberts would choose to join the majority in hopes that a 6 – 3 decision would garner more support than a 5 – 4 decision, it seems from this leak that he was unlikely to have been in the majority. Rather the case is likely to be a 5 – 1 – 3 decision where the vote is 6 – 3 to uphold the Mississippi law, but only 5 – 4 on completely overturning Roe and Casey.
What I find interesting is the speculation on who leaked the Alito draft. The first reaction of many people is that it was a Sotomayor clerk, or at least the clerk of a liberal justice. This theory goes that they wanted a public backlash to inspire Kavanaugh to have a change of mind ala Justice Kennedy in the Casey decision. But there is also a school of thought that the leaker could have been the clerk of a conservative justice that was worried one of the 5 justices that voted to overturn Roe and Casey at the post argument conference might be waffling and that they wanted to lock in their vote because that Justice would not want to appear to be backing down because of the public outcry. But either way, I think it is a virtual certainty that somebody leaked it. The chance that the opinion was found on an abandoned laptop ala Hunter Biden is vanishingly small.
Now more than ever there will be blue states, and regressive backwater red states. And I’m actually good with that – let the trash sequester themselves.
That’s an interesting thought. Can one state make it illegal to go to another state, have an abortion there, and then return? Maybe by using that Texas gimmick of letting people sue women that have an abortion?
The thing with the Texas law, which is why it’s stupid the SCOTUS didn’t block it, is that it’s the most hilariously stupid law ever concocted. “This is illegal, so we’ll make it so citizens do it and sue that makes it legal!”
I mean, you can do that with anything unconstitutional, right? Sure! Except no. Laws mean things. The only reason this hasn’t been laughed out of court is Trumpitis on various courts on every level, including the SCOTUS.
So yes, right away this will lead to mayhem. And eventually, civil war. Unless someone actually wants to fix it and lead at the national level.
This does make clear why they allowed the Texas law to sneak through. The counter-argument to the Texas law was that it nullifies a constitutional right. While that was true at the time, thus opening the door for (let’s say) Massachusetts to similarly deal with guns, the conservatives on the court knew that they had already decided that abortion was not a constitutional right, and therefore the counter-argument was, or soon would be, invalid. Once the Supremes toss out Roe and Casey, there is no longer a precedent to rationalize that theoretical Massachusetts law. The precedent justification is rendered moot because Texas is no longer depriving someone of a constitutional right. That right has been abrogated.
It will be interesting to see the full opinion. Would the states be permitted to enact any anti-abortion laws of their choosing? Could a state theoretically go full Handmaid’s Tale and strip women of all rights to terminate their pregnancies – even in the cases of rape, incest, and danger to their own lives or health?
> Could a state theoretically go full Handmaid’s Tale and strip
> women of all rights to terminate their pregnancies – even in
> the cases of rape, incest, and danger to their own lives or
> health?
I understand the draft opinion states this plainly. Further, the same “right to privacy” rationale which sustains Roe, emanating from the pneumbras of enumerated constitutional rights, is foundational to the right to use contraception, to engage in consensual sodomy, and to same sex marriage. The right to privacy in personal affairs, from which all these implied rights derive, is inferred from Constitutional prohibitions against warrantless search and seizure, soldiers being quartered in your home, compelled self incrimination, and protection for the right of association.
If the Court ceases to recognize or enforce a right to privacy, who knows where this could end up.
You all realize that women always have the CHOICE to not get pregnant, right? They can abstain, use birth control, condoms etc…. If you play Russian roulette and the gun goes off, you don’t get to blame the gun. Abortion is not an acceptable form of birth control.
What are you talking about? ALWAYS? So what is their choice not to get pregnant if they are raped? What is the choice of an ignorant young teen, or even pre-teen, impregnated by her father or some other family member?
Yeah, rape is a question of choice.
In case people’s memory is deficient, Roe was a 7-2 decision, in which five justices were Republican appointees and two were Democratic appointees. In dissent, one was a Republican appointee and the other a Democrat appointee.
Dear Steverino,
People make mistakes even when they have voluntarily sex. Should that mistake cost them 10s of thousands of dollars over the years? Some people aren’t fit to be parents and they know it. Some people are already parents and know they shouldn’t take on more responsibility.
Furthermore, infant and mother mortality rates in the US are an embarrassment. Those rates are even worse in red states that are likely to outlaw abortion. Not only are you saddled with a decision that you don’t like, that choice may actually kill you.
Lastly the right likes to spout about how they’re into the sanctity of life and are willing to spend money campaigning on it. So where is the money for quality maternal healthcare and adoption? I would’ve thought the best way to stop abortion would be to simply bribe women into bringing the pregnancy to term.
Scoop, you know I meant voluntarily. I’m actually pro choice and certainly in the case of incest or rape. However, I do consider it murder, I don’t think tax dollars should go to it, and if they voluntarily had sex and got pregnant then I have no sympathy for them. Too bad. But sure, go ahead and kill your kid. You have to live with that.
And what about for the health of the mother? Must a woman carry a pregnancy to term if that endangers her own life?
As for this sentence:
“I’m actually pro choice and certainly in the case of incest or rape. However, I do consider it murder.”
You realize that makes you pro-murder, right? Is that the quicksand where you wish to stake your claim?
There is an old saying that tough cases make bad law. When a federal court declares a law unconstitutional, they are actually ordering state officials to no longer enforce that law. Orders go to people, not to the states as states. The problem with issuing a prenforcemet stay of the TX law (i.e. preventing the law from going into effect) was that under existing law and precedent, there was no one to issue the order against. There are precedents that say federal courts may not enjoin state court judges from deciding cases. If the federal courts could not order judges not to hear the cases, there was really no one else to issue an order against that would affect the law. Leaving aside Dobbs for a moment, once a doctor was sued under the law, they could have gotten the case dismissed fairly quickly. I think that, more than the pending Dobbs decision was the reason the Court declined to issue a stay. The majority didn’t want to create some kind of novel doctrine to give them a power to issue a stay against a state directly as opposed to a state official.
Honestly, I am not sure if there have been any suits against TX abortion doctors. Obviously, if anything approaching the Alito draft is ultimately the decision of the Court, the Constitutional defense would evaporate. But if that happens I expect the current law would be repealed in favor of a straight forward ban on the procedure with possible exceptions.
Right. I’m not going to fight with a woman who wants to kill their baby. It’s none of my business. But it’s certainly murder. If the government wants to prosecute, I won’t stand in the way.
My understanding is that that is exactly how Texas intends to use their law: to make it illegal to take a woman to another state to get a legal abortion. I don’t see how that can hold up but anything is possible when the current Supreme Court.
The Talibanization of America…
You shouldn’t be. Most Red states are taker states and their shitty behaviour is subsidized by Blue states.
This is always an amusing argument. So let’s take all “free” subsidies away…. Medicaid, welfare, food stamps…. This should only affect the “backwards” red states, right? So liberals are good with this? I think we may have a deal.
You’re a complete moron…as evidenced by virtually every comment you have made here.
Good comment. Thanks.
Hey he said “virtually”
Nah, they should take the path of responsibility, levy an appropriate graduated income tax system and stop leeching money out other states.
So that’s a “no”? Then stop complaining about the red states if you aren’t willing to end the programs. You want them for the blue states.
The way the math works is this: if the entitlement programs were ended, the rich states could replace them for less than they are paying now. The poor states would either have to accept lower (or no) benefits or pay more for the same benefits.
That would work out great for the rich states, but would probably leave millions of Americans in the poor states without benefits they need, which is why the liberals believe there should be national programs, and that needy people should not be denied help because they happen to live on the wrong side of an imaginary line.
So you expect people to be responsible about their bodies but taker states get a pass?
Scoop, I agree with you here. I understand the math. But no one in red states asked the liberals to bleed for them. They didn’t ask for your compassion and mercy. So let’s just abolish those programs and let the chips fall where they may. Like you said, it will benefit the blue states so fantastic for all of you.
Again, as usual, that is factually incorrect. “No one in red states asked the liberals to bleed for them.” No one? MANY people in red states ask for and need that kind of help (obviously). In fact it might even be a majority of people in those states, if voter suppression methods were less successful, as we learned in Georgia. Liberals are not thinking about the states or their governments, but about the American citizens in those states that require the same roads as the rest of us, and other kinds of assistance that poor states can’t afford. (And the poor states tend to have more poor people as a percentage of the population, thus requiring more help proportionately.)
Wrong again Stevo.
Programs are created and red states are happy to take full advantage of them. They’re simply unwilling to pay for it themselves. They use their political power to insure the money keeps rolling in.
Unfortunately we are filled with regressive blue states as well. Both parties are pretty much rotten to their fucking core. If only more people would use their own mind and stop following the local cult. Oh well, I’ve given up on that hope. From here on out we are apparently going to be constantly attacked from both sides. Time for individuals to be allowed to go global. I don’t need no stinkin’ passport.
Unfortunately, what you’re pushing is the nature of evil. That both sides “are rotten to the core” leads to apathy. It’s precisely how the foundations of a democracy are cracked, deliberately, incrementally, by demagogues.
Modern statement of the tactic: “Flood the zone with shit.”
But it’s a false equivalency. True, there are rotten apples on both sides. To say that both sides are so, to the core, is to imply that the good/bad ratios are equal. That’s not the case. One side is infected thru & thru by pathogens. The other, simply, is far from overrun by its vaccine refuseniks.
This “BASB” talk seems more and more like a voter suppression by the Republicans. “The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity” seem like what they are trying to achieve.
What’s another one? “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for men of good will to do nothing.”
So if you’ve given up, Stick, would you do us a favor and shut up about it? Not everybody is as spiritless and defeated as you seem to be.
I expect to see a lot more of this “BSAB-It’s all hopeless” talk now that the Roe-reversal decision has leaked. The Republicans URGENTLY need to de-motivate voters upset by that.
You’re OK, Roger. This is good stuff.
One correction.
This judgement would not tighten abortion controls. It would remove the RvW decision, allowing states to tighten abortion controls.
It’s a nitpick, but a critical one.
Pro or against, it’s difficult to argue with the base logic in Alito’s writing here. RvW was terrible law, has lead to devastating side effects (the non-existent right to privacy they created to ban abortion laws), and desperately needed to be vacated.
If people want free and legal abortions, they need to have free and legal abortions, not a bogus right to privacy manufactured by a SCOTUS desperate to rule the way they wanted.
The problem is that legislators will never take a stand on this, meanwhile Republicans can NOT have a blanket ban on abortion or they’ll never get elected again. But what do they run on? Banning the thing they can never ban? Oh dear.
Meanwhile we’ve made changing the constitution so difficult it’ll essentially never happen again, so forget getting this or anything else in there.
And another SCOTUS flip flop? What, every four years now that they’re just another Senate committee?
Chaos ahead, mates.
Way worse decisions than Roe on the books…way worse. See Citizens United. The best government that money can buy.
My own opinion, alas, doesn’t point to some other direction that’s safe from the chaos. I’ve long felt SCOTUS in particular has too much unchecked power.
Next, of course, I’m going to maintain that the entire courts system, law enforcement, laws, regulations, taxes & lots of other basic facts of American life are pretty well fucked up. Civil law, torts, arbitration, insurance, finance, drug pricing. What a nightmare! There’s no alternative that’s clearly better. No system that’s bulletproof or infallible. And yet…
What I wish for is simply progress: Hope. That we’re climbing, maybe haltingly, jerkily, up a slope, towards a higher ground, somewhere ahead. America used to be where such a hope had a home. Now, backsliding is as likely as improvement. Everything’s limited. The walls are too close. We have to constantly duck hazardous objects dangling from the ceiling.
Face it: There’s no going back. Can’t we at least agree to push ahead?
1. A legal scholar on local radio pointed out that Roe is about abortion. It’s not about states rights at all.
2. There will be disparate impacts.
WRT states rights, that’s an incremental tactic, for when you can’t get your way at the federal level. The Roe decision blocked prohibitions, globally; opponents were forced to chip away at the issue, indirectly.
Removing Roe will mean a national ban is back on the table. That’ll be the main battle. State-by-state battles is just wishful thinking.
A lot of the things in this country that are broken that we can’t seem to fix have disparate impacts. It occurs to me that maybe, just maybe, this is largely because, to many Americans, the disproportionate harm falling on colored folks isn’t an accident. It’s the main thrust. If some white folks happen to be hurt, too, it’s collateral damage. And, maybe, also karma. White folks who rely on welfare needed to come to us for help. Sure, they’ll suffer our pity, but that’s too bad.
If they instead choose to depend on relief programs that also help the colored folks, tough. Suckers bet on the wrong horse. And then, when the colored folks naturally turn to the liberals, fine, then we’ll own the libs. White folks get what they deserve, for keeping bad company.
The ‘right to privacy’ is implied in the 14th Amendment protections of due process and equal protection.
Roe V. Wade is a sound ruling anchored in the Constitution. To claim otherwise is to fall for the lies of the Fascist Federalist Society.
The “fascist federalist society”… 😂😂😂. No one make me laugh like you do.
Whatever, troll.
Ooh, I’m so cowed by your giggles, Mr… what was the name? Oh, yes, Mr. Severus. OTOH, Adam’s right, it so happens. The idea for the society at its instant of insemination was a baldly fascist ambition. You should read the charter.
Stop throwing around fascism…. Go live under a fascist regime and come back so you have a baseline.
Why on earth would we do that, Steverino? We, unlike some, have the ability to learn from history and by example. If you think everything has to be learned by direct experience, you must have gone to the emergency room a LOT as a kid. “Here comes old ‘I do my own research!’ Steverino again”, they must have said.
We also remember the pre-Roe past, where desperate poor women died, but rich women just went to Europe (or paid off a US doctor, like Trump’s dad did to get Donald out of the draft). But that’s the kind of difference the Republican Party stands for.
Personally, I think letting a woman make her own decision is the less authoritarian option. To trust everyday people like that must seem weird to you. Maybe it’s just me. And about 70% of the rest of the US.
Roger, you and Adam live in fantasyland if you truly mean the word “fascism”. I’m sure you read about fascism in a book once, so you know all you need to know about it. Liberalism is a luxury of a post industrialized, bloated society. You’re the guy who hid under the bed when Genghis Khan raided, pillaged, and raped. I’d love to see you truly oppressed.
Nothing but personal attacks. Thanks for proving you are not worth replying to yet again, Steverino.