Decision Destroying Roe Threatens Legal Right To Interracial Marriage, Experts Warn
These news people sure like their scare tactics. They also said that there might be a ban on birth control
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Subsumedpat · 36-40, M
Yes as the right to marry is also based on the 14th amendment and as they decoupled abortion from the protections of the 14th the same thing could happen to that. Expect a return of Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022 and for those who voted against it to face the voters in November.
@Subsumedpat my god what is happening?
SW-User
@Subsumedpat woah slow down soldier
This is part of the decision:
"Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. But we have stated unequivocally that '[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.' We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed 'potential life.'"
This is part of the decision:
"Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. But we have stated unequivocally that '[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.' We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed 'potential life.'"
Subsumedpat · 36-40, M
SW-User
@Subsumedpat yes that is true that different jurors could reach different conclusions
Of course, the glass half full aspect of your argument is that this argument itself can be overturned
Btw Stare decisis is addressed at length in the decision. One of their points was that Casey had already partially overturned Roe - not endorsing their reasoning but they did address it
Of course, the glass half full aspect of your argument is that this argument itself can be overturned
Btw Stare decisis is addressed at length in the decision. One of their points was that Casey had already partially overturned Roe - not endorsing their reasoning but they did address it
Subsumedpat · 36-40, M
SW-User
@Subsumedpat well to be fair Roe Vs Wade has been acknowelged as being on shaky legal ground constitutionally
If they were political hacks we may have seen a judgement finding the constitutional right of the unborn baby to life trumps any right of the mother
And seen the right to abortion in the US overturned. We don't see this here
By batting it directly back to elected officials they've protected the rights of states to both restrict abortion and take a woman's right to it beyond Roe versus Wade and Casey
If they were political hacks we may have seen a judgement finding the constitutional right of the unborn baby to life trumps any right of the mother
And seen the right to abortion in the US overturned. We don't see this here
By batting it directly back to elected officials they've protected the rights of states to both restrict abortion and take a woman's right to it beyond Roe versus Wade and Casey
DCarey · 46-50, M
@Subsumedpat So you believe Plessy v. Ferguson shouldn't have been overturned because stare decisis is so sacrosanct, right?