The fight to end Roe v. Wade enters its endgame next week
September 28, 2019 8:30 AM   Subscribe

 
I seriously need to get off my ass and get sterilized already. Shouldn't wait until the IUD I'm currently using gets outlawed.
posted by schroedinger at 9:08 AM on September 28, 2019 [8 favorites]


Also once again we are reminded of the virtues of voting for the lesser evil--because that lesser evil won't nominate judges that think women are nothing but baby incubators.
posted by schroedinger at 9:10 AM on September 28, 2019 [49 favorites]


*barely stifled noises of anger and rage*

How many Trump supporters have I heard say "Don't be silly, they aren't going to ban abortion! You're being paranoid!"? Way too many.
posted by loquacious at 9:11 AM on September 28, 2019 [34 favorites]


Historically, American liberals and the left have been way too comfortable for too long with having country club Republicans as the median swing vote on the Supreme Court. This is the result.
posted by jonp72 at 9:44 AM on September 28, 2019 [19 favorites]


The topic of how Roe will be overturned comes up regularly in the comments at Lawyers, Guns & Money. There's no real consensus, but a popular position is that Roberts will arrange for it to be gnawed away from the inside until it's a husk that has no force to protect women or doctors.

Roberts prefers not to be seen as a complete political hack, having some residual capacity for something like shame, and also having the fact that Roe was never formally overturned de jure will allow Republicans to continue to wave the bloody shirt at their low-information voters while simultaneously offering reassurance to low-information Democrats.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 10:00 AM on September 28, 2019 [22 favorites]


I hate that the US, is this fucking dystopian nightmare. I wish I could afford to move someplace better. I'm sorry to all of the women this affects ( which would be most of the women in the US).
posted by evilDoug at 10:57 AM on September 28, 2019 [12 favorites]


There's no real consensus, but a popular position is that Roberts will arrange for it to be gnawed away from the inside until it's a husk that has no force to protect women or doctors.

Exactly. The so-called "moderation" of Chief Justice Roberts is merely a concern with optics and a desire to demobilize liberal and left-wing resistance to the Supreme Court.
posted by jonp72 at 11:07 AM on September 28, 2019 [9 favorites]


The lesson for the left - well, one of them - is that we need to stop pandering to the right, at all. I imagine there was a point in time in the 70s or 80s we could have passed an amendment to explicitly guarantee a right to abortion. But we assumed Roe v. Wade would remain settled law and played defense.

If we survive the Trumpian nightmare and manage to undo the damage done in the past few years, we need to understand that compromise with the right is not possible and if you want to progress to a certain point, you need to go well past it to prevent progress from being rolled back. Settling for abortion to be legal was not enough, we needed to move to making it an explicit right.

The gun lobby doesn't stop with guns being legal and easy to obtain, they are pushing to allow open carry, pushing to overturn the rights of businesses or communities to restrict guns being taken into stores, etc.

If we ever have the opportunity again, we need an explicit legal right to abortion - or even better, an amendment that guarantees bodily autonomy that includes abortion, birth control, euthanasia, SRS/GRS and hormone treatments, etc. and ensures they are covered by insurance and so forth.
posted by jzb at 11:08 AM on September 28, 2019 [47 favorites]


I'm sorry to all of the women this affects (which would be most of the women in the US).

Could we instead say "directly affects most of the heterosexual, under-55 women in the U.S."? Access to abortion is a very important issue to me, but "most of the women" leaves a lot of us out.
posted by still_wears_a_hat at 12:01 PM on September 28, 2019 [2 favorites]


If you want to know about the struggle for women s rights and against forced birth in Louisiana, which, yes, is a very Catholic state, please watch this video and support Lift Louisiana.
posted by eustatic at 12:16 PM on September 28, 2019 [6 favorites]


And shout to Mississippi too.

We are one country, and I think this issue, along with others, demonstrates well that allowing one political jurisdiction to fester, economically and otherwise, will come back to the country as a whole.
posted by eustatic at 12:25 PM on September 28, 2019 [3 favorites]


[One comment deleted at the commenter's request and then a couple followups too.]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 12:26 PM on September 28, 2019 [1 favorite]


Could we instead say "directly affects most of the heterosexual, under-55 women in the U.S."?

I mean, really this affects anyone with the current or future potential to become pregnant, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

That would include cis girls/women and (many) trans boys/men, and many non-binary gendered people as well, who have (or will mature into having) a fertile functioning uterus & ovaries. Sexual orientation is irrelevant to whether someone needs access to abortion, not least because not all pregnancies are the result of consensual sex.
posted by Secret Sparrow at 12:33 PM on September 28, 2019 [54 favorites]


I'm in my upper 30s and probably won't have any need to get an abortion any time in my life. This still affects me because it would codify the fact that, since I have a uterus, I have fewer rights than someone who doesn't. It makes me less of a person to take away that option, even if I never need it.
posted by Weeping_angel at 2:02 PM on September 28, 2019 [49 favorites]


This still affects me because it would codify the fact that, since I have a uterus, I have fewer rights than someone who doesn't. It makes me less of a person to take away that option, even if I never need it.

I can just see it now. "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids men and women alike to get abortions."

Or as Bojack saw it, "I'm a man, but if I got pregnant, would I put my life on hold for a child I didn't want? Yes, I would. I can say that with confidence, because I will never have to make that decision, so I'm unbiased."

My gender sucks.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 2:13 PM on September 28, 2019 [10 favorites]


I imagine there was a point in time in the 70s or 80s we could have passed an amendment to explicitly guarantee a right to abortion.

You’re imagining an America that bears little resemblance to the one that existed in the ‘70s and ‘80s and failed to pass the ERA.

There’s a reason the Supreme Court has to wade in on abortion over and over again — neither side can get enough political power to get an amendment passed. You have to get 38 states to sign off on an amendment. The only things 38 states have agreed on in the time since Roe was that Reagan and Bush I should have been President.
posted by Etrigan at 3:23 PM on September 28, 2019 [17 favorites]


There was never a time an abortion rights amendment could have been adopted. It has never had two-thirds of either House of Congress to say the least of both legislative houses of three-fourths of the states. There has been a pro-Roe v Wade President and both Houses of Congress for precisely two of the 46 years since Roe was handed down (2009-2011).
posted by MattD at 3:29 PM on September 28, 2019 [2 favorites]


The picture illustrating that article couldn't be more disgustingly perfect.
posted by Emmy Rae at 3:39 PM on September 28, 2019 [2 favorites]


There was never a time an abortion rights amendment could have been adopted. It has never had two-thirds of either House of Congress to say the least of both legislative houses of three-fourths of the states. There has been a pro-Roe v Wade President and both Houses of Congress for precisely two of the 46 years since Roe was handed down (2009-2011).

In case it's not clear to everyone, this is not a coincidence.
posted by Caduceus at 3:40 PM on September 28, 2019 [3 favorites]


Could we instead say "directly affects most of the heterosexual, under-55 women in the U.S."?

I mean, really this affects anyone with the current or future potential to become pregnant, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.


It also affects everyone who has a personal or professional relationship with someone who ends up dead or imprisoned because of an illegal abortion.
posted by corey flood at 7:48 PM on September 28, 2019 [13 favorites]


I mean, once we expand the scope of “affected” beyond the pregnant person themselves, it just keeps going:

Families affected by the emotional and financial impact of an unwanted child, or the imprisinment, injury, or death of the pregnant person.

Employers and co-workers affected by the temporary absence, permanent departure, or even death of the pregnant person.

Healthcare workers risking their livelihoods and their freedom to get people access to abortions. The families of healthcare workers imprisoned for providing abortions.

Increased strain on social programs.

We know what the impacts will be because the they’re still in living memeory in the U.S. and they're ongoing in other countries. At the end of the day we’re all affected, it’s just that some of us are much more harshly and directly affected than others.
posted by Secret Sparrow at 8:51 PM on September 28, 2019 [17 favorites]


My mom marched on Washington carrying a sign that read “Post-Menopausal Woman Nostalgic For Choice”.

In goddamn 1989.
posted by nicwolff at 11:53 PM on September 28, 2019 [12 favorites]


I mean, once we expand the scope of “affected” beyond the pregnant person themselves, it just keeps going:

Families affected by the emotional and financial impact of an unwanted child, or the imprisinment, injury, or death of the pregnant person.


Don't forget the unwanted children themselves, at least some of whom are (if forced to be born) bound to grow up resented, neglected, and/or abused. And their future kids, when the cycle inevitably perpetuates itself.
posted by non canadian guy at 11:54 AM on September 29, 2019 [8 favorites]


Don't forget the unwanted children themselves, at least some of whom are (if forced to be born) bound to grow up resented, neglected, and/or abused. And their future kids, when the cycle inevitably perpetuates itself.
At 17 Shannon is pregnant
As young as her mom when she had her
Her kid is never gonna have a dad
The same old way that Shannon never had
What comes around well it goes around
Nothing changes cause it's all the same
The world you get's the one you give away
It all just happens again
Way down the line
And all the things you learn when you're a kid
You'll fuck up just like your parents did
It all just happens again
Way down the line
20 years later we refuse to learn the easily learnt lessons.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 1:58 PM on September 29, 2019 [2 favorites]


I'm 100% for abortion rights for all women and other pregnancy-having people, throughout the entirety of pregnancy, but I've always been uncomfortable with the framing of it being at all for the sake of the unborn children. The message seems to be "if you grew up resented, neglected, and/or abused, then it's better if you had never existed at all," which, I feel like those kids probably get enough of that message from their neglecters and/or abusers, don't you?
posted by slappy_pinchbottom at 5:49 PM on September 29, 2019 [2 favorites]


I'm a bit doubtful on the chain of logic leading to Roberts insisting on leaving a shell of Roe. While, sure, I get that he has a bit of a history of trying to present a false front of reasonable moderation, I just don't think the political climate is such that he can get away with refusing to take an opportunity to strike down Roe.

Yes, the Republicans have been waving Roe around as a vote grabber for generations and that's precisely the problem. Their constituents now expect it to happen. They've got their majority now, I think the backlash from forced birth Republicans would be tremendous if their Justices refused to follow through. And I think Roberts is enough of a partisan Republican to recognize that and vote accordingly.

I hope I'm wrong, because leaving even a shell of Roe would probably make it easier for a hypothetical liberal court to restore abortion rights. But I think we've been putting far too much faith in the idea of Republicans holding up a mask of normalcy and reasonableness. Trump has proved that they don't need to and I think a great many are reveling in that including the Republicans on the Court.
posted by sotonohito at 6:29 AM on September 30, 2019


Historically, American liberals and the left have been way too comfortable for too long with having country club Republicans as the median swing vote on the Supreme Court. This is the result.

"Let's figure out a way to blame this on someone other than the people who are explicitly at fault."
posted by aspersioncast at 6:34 AM on September 30, 2019 [7 favorites]


aspersioncast Not that it's our fault, but polling does show that the American right was **VASTLY** more concerned with the courts in general, and the Supreme Court in specific than the American liberals and left are/were.

I think in large part it's because American liberalism is often focused rather intensely on process and trying to assure that process is being followed meaning that it'd be a violation of a big part of the American liberal ideology to try to rally voters around the Court. Heck, right here on metafilter there's people arguing that it's inherently wrong and immoral for a Democratic President to automatically disqualify all Republicans from consideration for the Supreme Court, arguing for a sort of Catholic style double intent position whereby the President should adopt officially non-partisan criteria that just happen to almost certainly exclude all Republican jurists.

Because, at heart, American liberals really do care about process being just and fair and at heart the American right doesn't. So the right uses the Court as a big rallying cry for their voters and the Democrats simply don't.

Not that Democrats don't care about the Court, they do, they just don't see it as a vote grabber because to the Democrats the Court is supposed to be non-partisan.

During the 2016 election we saw a huge number of Republican ads focusing on voting for Trump because he'd put a hard right Justice on the court. We saw a lot fewer ads for Clinton focusing on voting for her to save Roe or to get a liberal on the Court. In fact, I'm pretty sure there weren't any. Not because she, or the Democratic voters, don't care but because they're still committed to the idea of a neutral Court and think campaigning on putting liberals on the Court would be a violation of their ideology.
posted by sotonohito at 7:54 AM on September 30, 2019 [3 favorites]


I feel so helpless. I hope more states will go the way of Illinois.
posted by agregoli at 10:48 AM on September 30, 2019 [1 favorite]


I posted this to the front page but I was told it would be better as a comment here:

"Doctors’ standing is so much an accepted part of abortion litigation that Louisiana didn’t even question it in defending its law in the lower courts, and the lower courts naturally didn’t address it. ... On its face, then, the state’s cross-petition is frivolous. I sensed potential trouble when I stumbled upon it by chance over the summer, but the idea that the justices would actually grant it seemed so far-fetched that I put it out of my mind..."

Linda Greenhouse, Pulitzer-winning Supreme Court reporter for the New York Times, writes about the very high stakes in the first of a wave of anti-abortion measures to reach the Trump Supreme Court.

"It turns out that the idea of eliminating doctors’ third-party standing has been in the anti-abortion movement’s water supply ever since Justice Thomas raised it in his dissenting opinion in Whole Woman’s Health three years ago."
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:59 PM on October 10, 2019


« Older G'day, Chris here   |   🌶️ “Second of all...this is literal inedible... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments