Opinion Abortion Change Won’t Come until the Supreme Court Abandons Roe v. Wade

00:15  30 june  2020
00:15  30 june  2020 Source:   nationalreview.com

The quiet question in the Supreme Court abortion case that could have a major impact

  The quiet question in the Supreme Court abortion case that could have a major impact Louisiana is also questioning third-party standing in June Medical Services v. Russo, an abortion case with the Supreme Court. June Medical Services v. Russo is a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital, an agreement between a doctor and a hospital that allows a patient to go to that hospital if they need urgent care.

Roe v . Wade reshaped American politics, dividing much of the United States into abortion rights and In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the is constitutionally protected, but abandoned Roe 's trimester framework in favor of a standard

The Supreme Court could dismantle the constitutional right to an abortion , and all it The fight to end Roe v . Wade enters its endgame next week. The Supreme Court could dismantle the It was the fact that the Court ’s personnel had changed , and the new majority with Roberts as chief justice was far

Pro-abortion activists are sure to be celebrating the Supreme Court’s decision this morning in June Medical Services v. Russo to strike down Louisiana’s recent abortion law, the Court’s first major decision regarding abortion since the appointment of Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch to the bench. To the casual observer, this case may seem to have been a matter of nine justices expressing their whimsical views on Louisiana’s mandate that abortionists enjoy admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. And admittedly, it is easy to get caught up in the semantics of accessibility, undue regulatory burdens, the quality of medical care, the enforceability of the statute, etc., as the Court itself did throughout its deliberations. But these are superficial questions. Ultimately, the Court’s abortion-related decisions are mostly deeply affected by whether the precedents established by Roe v. Wade and reimagined in terms of viability by Planned Parenthood v. Casey are taken seriously. As long as these precedents are held to be untouchable, there is only so much maneuvering the Court can do on cases like the Louisiana one — even as new scientific considerations come to light regarding the humanity of fetuses. Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts cited the precedent of the Court’s 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt as he sided with the Court’s liberal wing today. However, the Court has another option: to revisit — and perhaps even to overturn — Roe v. Wade in future abortion cases.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions

  Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law that could have left the state with a single abortion clinic. © Michael A. Mccoy/Getty Images Anti-abortion demonstrators protesting in front of the Supreme Court in Washington last week. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voting with the court’s four-member liberal wing but not adopting its reasoning. The chief justice said respect for precedent compelled him to vote with the majority. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.

The supreme court ’s third and last decision released today dealt a win to conservatives fighting against the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau Collins said in 2018 that Kavanaugh has said before and told her personally many times that he respects Roe v Wade , the supreme court case

The gradual erosion of Roe v . Wade is a much more likely scenario for diminishing abortion access, according to Cohen, because Chief Justice John "I am very pessimistic about it, and that's because I'm thinking about the range of ways Roe can fall that would not require the Supreme Court to

a group of people standing in front of a sign posing for the camera: Anti-abortion marchers rally at the Supreme Court during the 46th annual March for Life in Washington, U.S., January 18, 2019. © Joshua Roberts/Reuters Anti-abortion marchers rally at the Supreme Court during the 46th annual March for Life in Washington, U.S., January 18, 2019.

A challenge to the famous 1973 verdict has long been thought to be without the realm of possibility, but the notion has gained momentum in recent years. In 2016, Donald Trump boldly ran on an anti-Roe platform, promising to appoint justices who would overturn the case (subsequently, Trump’s appointees made sure to sing the customary praises of precedent in their confirmation hearings). In January, 200 members of Congress urged the Court to use June Medical as a chance to revisit Roe v. Wade. And it is for the very purpose of challenging Roe v. Wade that pro-life state legislatures such as those in Alabama have put forth strong anti-abortion measures within the last few years. None of this would matter if the Supreme Court were entirely unwilling ever to flout stare decisis; on the contrary, the Court has recently rejected the four-decade-long precedents of Nevada v. Hall (concerning state-on-state litigation) and Apodaca v. Oregon (concerning juror unanimity for state-court felony convictions). This indicates that the body is open to breaking from tradition when it feels that the circumstances sufficiently warrant it. Practically speaking, a departure from judicial precedent is feasible in the case of Roe v. Wade: Justices Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Roberts have all expressed, to varying degrees, skepticism of pro-abortion laws and rulings in past legal cases. And while Roberts has proven to be the least reliable skeptic of the five, the events of 2016 taught us that the Court’s composition can change on a whim — a surprise reelection of President Trump, and the subsequent appointment of a justice to the right of an exiting Breyer or Ginsburg, is not inconceivable. But it must also come to be understood why reconsidering Roe v. Wade is justified, lest this endeavor be reckoned nothing more than a political power move.

USA: Supreme Court invalidates restrictive abortion law

 USA: Supreme Court invalidates restrictive abortion law © NICHOLAS KAMM Activists against abortion before the Supreme Court in Washington, June 29, 2020 The United States Supreme Court on Monday invalidated a law on Louisiana very restrictive on abortion which had the value of a test for the high court deeply reworked by Donald Trump. The text, adopted in 2014, aimed to oblige doctors performing abortions to obtain a license to practice in a hospital located less than 50 kilometers from the place of the intervention.

The anti- abortion movement believes it's one Donald Trump-appointed Supreme Court justice away from a shot at overturning Roe v . Wade , and But National Right to Life and other parts of the anti- abortion movement have moved away from the idea of challenging Roe until the composition of

"When the Supreme Court overturns a prior precedent, it is potentially changing a settled constitutional arrangement or a settled set of rights Recent laws that could be seen as a challenge to Roe v . Wade , including Georgia's heartbeat bill, could use this vague language to escape any claims

There are several reasons why Roe v. Wade merits reconsideration. For one, the majority opinion of the Court for this case in 1973 used several historical arguments completely unrelated to the United States Constitution to justify its verdict. These arguments, intended to discredit the “relatively recent vintage” of anti-abortion laws, were directly contrary to Justice Harry Blackmun’s claim in the decision that the Justices had resolved the issue solely by “constitutional measurement,” and that no emotion or political bias had factored into their decision. Justice Blackmun made several references to the abortion policies of ancient governments, such as: “Abortion was practiced in Greek times as well as in the Roman Era . . . it was resorted to without scruple.” Also: “The Ephesian, Soranos . . . found it necessary to think first of the life of the mother, and he resorted to abortion when . . . he felt the procedure advisable.” Consider, too: “There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth” and, “Ancient religion did not bar abortion.” Legally speaking, it is hard to see how any of these arguments help to justify the Court’s verdict, and their inclusion in the Supreme Court majority opinion in defense of the legalization of abortion demonstrates that they may have made an observable impact on the Supreme Court’s social policy. This is simply unacceptable, considering that the Constitution and judicial precedents are meant to be the sole references for Supreme Court Justices in their verdicts. The use of ancient morality to justify a supposedly constitutionally based decision is certainly cause for at least a reevaluation of the case, especially considering that Blackmun’s historical claims were shaky even on their own terms.

Science prevails in Supreme Court ruling on abortion law that provided no medical benefit

  Science prevails in Supreme Court ruling on abortion law that provided no medical benefit The Supreme Court followed scientific research and evidence when it came to abortion in Louisiana. All courts and lawmakers should do the same.With this victory, though, we must remember that there still exist abortion restrictions rooted not in evidence but rather in ideology. These laws create deep inequities in our health care system that we must address to achieve real justice for people across the United States.

The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a major abortion case, the first with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh on the bench. Donald Trump campaigned in 2016 on nominating justices who would "automatically" overturn Roe v . Wade . Brett Kavanaugh, associate justice of the

If it’s ignored, which other supreme court decisions could be overturned next? Until recently, I would have said that respect for precedent would protect Roe v Wade from being overturned, but I now In appealing to the supreme court to reverse the fifth circuit, friends of the court (amici curiae) have

Of course, the Court also employed constitutional considerations; these, too, were deeply flawed. Indeed, many constitutional lawyers — among them, Yale Law School professor John Hart Ely and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia — have pointed out that the Supreme Court, in overruling state and local regulations of abortion through Roe v. Wade, engaged in social engineering outside of the power granted to the judicial branch by the U.S. Constitution. Let us see why: The Court claimed, in line with precedent dating back to 1891, that the Constitution gives an implicit “guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy.” Past judicial rulings had found such a right hidden within the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments; the Supreme Court, on the other hand, pointed to the 14th Amendment as the source of this right for the purposes of Roe v. Wade. However, this amendment makes no mention of privacy, let alone abortion:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Roberts drifts away from conservative bloc, angering Republicans and exciting the left

  Roberts drifts away from conservative bloc, angering Republicans and exciting the left Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ role as the court’s new swing vote has become abundantly apparent in recent weeks, as he has been the deciding justice in several high-profile 5-4 decisions in which he sided with the court’s liberal bloc -- providing hope for Democrats and angering Republicans. © Provided by FOX News The court ruled 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the court's liberal justices; Trump 2020 senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis joins the debate.

Roe v . Wade could be overturned after Anthony Kennedy retires from the Supreme Court . More than abortion rights will disappear from America. America Will Lose More Than Abortion Rights If Roe v . Wade Is Overturned.

The supreme court found women have a constitutional right to obtain an abortion in 1973, in the landmark case Roe v Wade . That tilted the balance of the nine-member court to the right, and made June Medical Services the first anti- abortion restriction to come before the new conservative justices.

This section of the 14th Amendment is often cited in court, and for good reason: It is a chief preventer of governmental tyranny or of injustice in the administration of the criminal-justice system. However, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of “equal protection under the law” as justification for the legalization of the surgical murder of a fetus has mystified legal scholars for decades since the ruling. The idea that laws enacted to protect unborn children are somehow discriminatory against pregnant women and violate their equal protection under the law is greatly misguided. For although one may be entitled to any number of rights and privileges, these are commonly held to end where another’s begin; none would condemn laws protecting civilians from violence as being discriminatory against those who would wish to enact such violence. Only by forming their own judgment, independent of constitutional tradition, that fetuses are property could the Court have decided that the 14th Amendment is applicable to the issue of abortion.

Scalia refutes the Court’s reasoning: “The Constitution, in fact, says nothing at all about [abortion]. It is left to democratic choice.” Indeed, the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment allows all power not explicitly granted to the federal government (such as the regulation of abortion) to fall to the states. It is greatly revealing of the personal ideology of many of the Court’s justices that they have ignored this explicit constitutional directive while embracing one entirely manufactured by the Court.

Supreme Court sidesteps abortion cases, shortly after striking Louisiana restrictions

  Supreme Court sidesteps abortion cases, shortly after striking Louisiana restrictions Chief Justice John Roberts' vote with the court's liberal judges to overturn the Louisiana law wasn't the win for abortion rights advocates that many assumed. Roberts said his vote in the case was bound by precedent, since the court in a 2016 case, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, rejected a nearly identical Texas law that also required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals."The liberal justices said courts have to balance burdens versus benefits when ruling on abortion laws," explained Mary Ziegler, a law professor at Florida State University.

In short, the Court’s justification for blocking anti-abortion state legislation rests on shaky grounds and ignores common-sense constitutional interpretation. And if the precedent of any case merits being scorned — something which should be done rarely and with the utmost caution — it is the precedent of Roe v. Wade. So rather than being viewed as successful efforts to uphold well-formed precedent, the rulings of Planned Parenthood v. Casey and of today should be seen for what they are: in line with a precedent that rests on an unacceptably shaky foundation. There are sure to be new abortion cases before the Supreme Court, and Roberts may decide to again employ stare decisis to punt the question of abortion back even further. But the issue won’t really be put to rest until enough justices decide to abandon the precedent of Roe v. Wade — or to succumb to its mandates permanently.

More on National Review

  • Citizens Take on Pennsylvania’s Public-Sector Unions
  • Police ‘Reform’ and the Making of a Racism Narrative
  • Justice Gorsuch’s Halfway Textualism Surprises and Disappoints in the Title VII Cases

Justice Roberts plays the long game .
To state that Chief Justice John Roberts has disappointed conservatives may be an understatement. He provided key votes in decisions rejecting the White House efforts to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and uphold a Louisiana abortion regulation. These votes, Curt Levey lamented in the Washington Post, "mark the death knell for conservative hopes" that the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court "would finally produce aFirst, aside from these immigration and abortion decisions, the Supreme Court has produced decisions which reliably accord with those goals of conservatives. Consider the decision in the Seila Law case, released the same day as the Louisiana abortion ruling.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks
usr: 0
This is interesting!