•   
  •   
  •   

Opinion Everyone Expects the Supreme Court to Uphold or Overturn Roe. But There’s Another Option.

19:57  30 november  2021
19:57  30 november  2021 Source:   slate.com

Over half of Americans in new poll say Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade

  Over half of Americans in new poll say Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade The Washington Post-ABC poll found Republicans are almost evenly split on whether the US Supreme Court should overturn the landmark abortion ruling.The poll, conducted Nov. 7-10, found 60% of Americans believe Roe should be upheld, versus 27% who believe the high court should overturn that landmark decision.

On Dec. 1, the most important battle over reproductive freedom in 29 years will take place at the Supreme Court. The justices will hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a challenge to Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban that doubles as a direct attack on Roe v. Wade. The case will test whether Donald Trump’s three justices will fulfill his campaign promise to overrule Roe, allowing states to ban all abortions starting from conception.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett (L) shakes hands with Chief Justice John Roberts on the plaza in front of the Supreme Court. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images © Provided by Slate Justice Amy Coney Barrett (L) shakes hands with Chief Justice John Roberts on the plaza in front of the Supreme Court. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Each side of this showdown has generally framed Dobbs as a one-question test with a yes-or-no answer: Should the Supreme Court uphold or abolish the constitutional right to abortion before fetal viability? Each side agrees that the outcome lies in the hands of three justices who make up the center of this hard-right court: John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Legal advocates have aimed every argument at this powerful new troika. Conservative commentators have warned that their failure to overturn Roe could blow up the conservative legal movement—and maybe the Republican Party, too. Anything short of Roe’s complete dismantlement, they claim, could spell doom for the movement and the party that elevated them to the bench.

Mike Pence joins conservative groups in jumping into abortion debate at Supreme Court

  Mike Pence joins conservative groups in jumping into abortion debate at Supreme Court Mike Pence’s group is one of dozens filing briefs in the most significant abortion case to come become before the Supreme Court in decades.Pence’s group, Advancing American Freedom, is one of dozens of anti-abortion organizations to file briefs in recent days supporting Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Nearly 230 GOP lawmakers also filed a brief Thursday, calling on the high court to release Roe's "vise grip on abortion politics.

The right’s pressure campaign has grown so overwhelming in part because it has a sense of déjà vu. A court stacked with GOP appointees seemingly on the brink of bulldozing Roe is exactly where things stood in the last face-off over Roe in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Back then, the future of abortion rights appeared about as bleak as it does today. Five justices had previously expressed hostility toward Roe, and two more were perceived as foes of the decision. There was a single Democratic appointee on the bench, and he rejected all constitutional protections for abortion.

Then, as now, the prospect of a middle-ground seemed unfathomable. Rather than seek a bargain that might chip away at this anti-Roe majority, Planned Parenthood attorney Kathryn Kolbert took an all-or-nothing approach. With the presidential election looming, she sought to force the issue, demanding an up-or-down vote on Roe’s validity. President George H.W. Bush’s Justice Department had come out swinging against abortion rights, and a decision overruling Roe—especially one joined by his two justices—could make the race something of a referendum on reproductive freedom.

John Roberts' long history with abortion and Roe v. Wade

  John Roberts' long history with abortion and Roe v. Wade Since his first job as a young lawyer in Washington, John Roberts' work has been entangled with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that gave women a right to end a pregnancy. © Alex Wong/Getty Images U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts leaves after day five of the Senate impeachment trial against President Donald Trump at the U.S. Capitol January 25, 2020 in Washington, DC. President Donald Trump's defense team started to present its arguments today in the Senate impeachment trial. He helped hoist the banner against Roe in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.

But something strange happened when Kolbert began speaking that day. The justices, usually so quick to jump in with questions, remained silent. Kolbert went on for an astounding eight minutes before Justice Sandra Day O’Connor interrupted with the first question. Was it true, O’Connor wondered, that the court had just two choices: overturn Roe or uphold “all its aspects”? Might there be another path? Justice Anthony Kennedy chimed in with a similar query: Could the court affirm the core right to abortion only by upholding Roe “in its most rigid formulation”?  Or was there another “logical possibility in this case”?

In retrospect, these comments foreshadowed the court’s eventual decision in Casey. O’Connor and Kennedy, along with Justice David Souter, charted a new course: They replaced Roe’s “rigid” strict scrutiny standard with a new “undue burden” test that allowed more restrictions on abortion, including mandatory waiting periods and parental consent for minors. At the same time, they preserved Roe’s “central holding,” declaring that no state may impose an outright ban on the abortion before viability (at about 24 weeks). The trio cited several reasons for watering down Roe while retaining its “essence,” but the predominant factor was stare decisis, or respect for precedent. “An entire generation” had “come of age” relying on Roe “to make reproductive decisions.” To overrule the precedent “under fire” would “subvert the court’s legitimacy beyond any serious question.”

Mississippi asks Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade in blockbuster abortion case

  Mississippi asks Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade in blockbuster abortion case The state's legal argument is the sharpest framing yet of the dispute as Mississippi engages in a frontal assault on the right to abortion.The high court agreed in May to hear a challenge to Mississippi's ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, giving its new, six-member conservative majority a chance to roll back the 1973 ruling that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

Casey provoked a sense of betrayal, if not outright trauma, within the conservative legal movement. It prompted GOP attorneys to develop a more sophisticated vetting process for judicial nominees under the slogan “no more Souters.” Potential Supreme Court justices are now carefully screened for their anti-abortion bona fides with thinly veiled questions about “unenumerated rights” and “substantive due process.”

There is good reason to doubt that Roberts, Kavanaugh, or Barrett will pull a Souter in Dobbs. The chief justice has upheld a weak version of abortion rights in the past. But in the process, he pointedly noted that no party asked the court “to reassess the constitutional validity” of the right to abortion. Even if the chief justice does uphold pro-choice precedents, advocates will still need Barrett or Kavanaugh’s vote. Both jurists auditioned for the Supreme Court by criticizing Roe, and neither has ever voted to block an abortion restriction. Both voted to let Texas’ six-week abortion ban take effect in September (though both also appear uncomfortable with its vigilante scheme). And one of them cast the decisive vote to hear Dobbs in the first place.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: What to watch for as the Supreme Court reconsiders Roe v. Wade

  Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization: What to watch for as the Supreme Court reconsiders Roe v. Wade The Supreme Court hears oral arguments Wednesday in a case that could result in the repeal of Roe v. Wade, the decision legalizing abortion nationwide that's been at the center of American politics for nearly 50 years. © Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images Activists protest during a demonstration outside of the Supreme Court on October 4, 2021, in Washington. Here are the key details: How to listen and follow along Arguments begin at 10 a.m. ET. The court still doesn't allow TV cameras, but it has finally relented on live audio. You can listen on CNN.com and follow along with our live coverage.

On the eve of Dobbs—before a tsunami of protesters descend upon the court; before nerve-racking oral arguments before a partly empty courtroom; before months of tense deliberations behind the velvet curtains—the smart money counts five votes to gut Roe.

The same was true, however, on the eve of Casey. And while Kolbert herself believes Roe is now as good as gone, the less extreme conservative justices could still pull a rabbit out of the hat. Once again, the parties have asked the court to go big or go home: Abortion providers, the Justice Department, and Mississippi agree that the court must either strike down the 15-week ban or overrule Roe, Casey, and the rest.

But there are, as always, alternatives. Most obviously, the court could move back the point at which states can prohibit abortion outright from 24 weeks to 15 or perhaps 12, the end of the first trimester. (The vast majority of abortions occur before this point.) It could hold that states do not impose an undue burden on abortion so long as they give patients a sufficient window to terminate their pregnancies. A diminished right to abortion would survive, battered but extant—whereas a decision overruling Roe would lead to total or near-total bans in roughly half the states. Due to “trigger laws,” a dozen states would shutter their abortion clinics the moment Roe falls. Compared to that radical outcome, a 12 or 15-week cutoff might not seem like the apocalypse to pro-choice advocates if it is enshrined as a durable new rule by which lower courts must abide.

How to Know If Roe v. Wade Is Doomed at the Supreme Court

  How to Know If Roe v. Wade Is Doomed at the Supreme Court What to watch for in the oral arguments for the Supreme Court’s big abortion case.The concept of viability is a crucial part of abortion rights in the United States. Roe v. Wade and its successor case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, recognize the right to choose abortion until viability. That means to uphold Mississippi’s law, the court will have to either hold that there is no abortion right or rewrite what Roe v. Wade stands for, effectively removing any kind of barrier to how early a state may ban abortion.

Anti-abortion advocates are terrified of this prospect; their many amicus briefs scorn the idea of a compromise, insisting that the court must eradicate Roe root and branch. They are frightened because they understand the appeal of such a trade-off to Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—who, after all, have disappointed the right with improbable trade-offs in the past. Abortion foes would receive such a ruling as a crushing blow to the GOP’s judicial confirmation machine and to the conservative legal movement. Foot soldiers of this movement are already warning of chaos and fury if the court stops short of overruling Roe. They have condemned such a decision as “a massive defeat masquerading as a victory” and insisted that “there is no middle ground,” no “intellectually honest” compromise. Alongside the Republican Party, they have spent years preparing for this moment. If they fail to deliver, the explosion of rage and recriminations may destabilize the entire operation. .

Justices, even very conservative ones, do not typically appreciate being treated like pawns in someone else’s game. Souter, O’Connor, and Kennedy certainly didn’t, and their disloyalty to their political benefactors preserved some semblance of reproductive freedom for the last three decades. On Wednesday, when Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett speak, we should listen for all the usual clues: If they express concern for precedent, stability in the law, and legitimacy of the court, they may be leaning toward compromise.; If they express skepticism toward Roe’s reasoning, interest in scientific advances since 1973, and concern for the life of the fetus, they’re likely preparing to dismantle pro-choice precedent.

But we should also listen for one thing that the justices are not always able to hide: frustration. Frustration that they face a binary choice rather than the opportunity to craft a new compromise. Frustration that the movement responsible for their appointments now demands their votes in return for the favor. Frustration that, if they vote as their patrons insist, they will be helping a vulgar, lawless, twice-impeached president achieve a campaign pledge. Everything about Dobbs feels predictable and political. The question now is: Do these justices wish to serve as the Republican Party’s means to an end?

Maybe so. For abortion proponents, the case for pessimism is strong. But the case for caution before forecasting catastrophe can be made, as well. The Supreme Court has surprised us before. And Casey’s curious history demonstrates that justices may defy expectations even when the future of reproductive freedom seems bleaker than ever before.

Roe Is Radical. The Conservative Justices Aiming To Overturn It Are Not. .
Smart beds tout features like sleep tracking and climate control. But does the technology actually produce a better night’s rest? WSJ asked Dr. Wendy Troxel, a clinical psychologist trained in sleep medicine, for her expert opinion. Photo: Andy Wiebe

usr: 3
This is interesting!