by Kerry Dougherty

I hate writing about abortion. Americans are not persuadable on the topic. Minds are made up.

But here is what I will say about Friday’s Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade:

Any lawyer who understands the Constitution will privately admit that the 1973 decision was always on shaky ground. An over-reaching court — all men, by the way — grappled to find a Constitutional right to the procedure. So they invented one.

Even the left’s patron saint, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a strong supporter of abortion, once criticized the Roe ruling in a lecture she gave to New York University’s School of Law:

The seven to two judgment in Roe v. Wade declared “violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” a Texas criminal abortion statute that intolerably shackled a woman’s autonomy; the Texas law “except[ed] from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the [pregnant woman].” Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed, reflected most recently in the Supreme Court’s splintered decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey? A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.

She was right. The faulty decision itself splintered the country.

Worse, in recent years abortion enthusiasts made a mockery of Bill Clinton’s mantra that abortions should be “safe, legal and RARE.” These ghouls not only celebrated their own abortions but they pushed back against ANY restrictions. That included a vile piece of Virginia legislation offered in 2019 by Democrat Del. Kathy Tran (of Fairfax, where else?) that would have legalized abortion until the moment of birth. That bill to vastly expand third-trimester abortions thankfully died in committee, but then-Gov. Ralph Northam defended it in an infamous radio interview explaining how disabled infants are allowed to die after birth.

Normal Virginians, of both parties, were sickened.

Friday’s decision is the embodiment of federalism. The people in the states will decide if they will allow abortions or what restrictions they may place on the procedures.

This is what the Founders had in mind: a weak federal government and strong government by the states.

Gov. Glenn Youngkin said Friday that he would push a measure to limit abortions to 15 weeks of pregnancy in the next General Assembly session. Democrat State Sen. Joe Morrissey said he would support restrictions so, in the closely divided Senate, it could pass. Still, that would make Virginia’s abortion laws more permissive than Belgium, Denmark, Finland , Germany, Hungary, Ireland and Italy that prohibit abortion after 12 weeks. Or France and Spain, which allow abortion only until 14 weeks.

With abortion decisions now residing with the states this could also end — or reverse — the migration of liberals from blue states to low-tax red states where they inevitably vote for the same bad policies that ruined places like New York, California and Massachusetts.

This column has been republished with permission from Kerry: Unemployed & Unedited.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

71 responses to “Roe v Wade Is Gone”

  1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    165 years ago, the Dred Scott decision was hailed as the final answer to the question of slavery. All it accomplished was a hardening of America along the fault lines of sectional divisional. Less able political figures hastened a bloody earthquake whose aftershocks tremble the nation to this day. The abortion battles to come can learn a great deal from this history. But they will not.

    In a strange twist of history Dred Scott and Nat Turner were born within a few miles of each other in Southampton County, Virginia. Their birthdays are less than a year apart.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      History instructs in the form of Jim Crow laws that the Dred Scott decision was not at all hailed 165 years ago but instead reinforced.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        C. Vann Woodward’s “Strange Career of Jim Crow” illustrates what that was all about.

  2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “… how disabled infants are allowed to die after birth.”

    Closer but still not correct – intentionally, I’m sure. What is “ghoulish” is the Conservative propensity to suggest Northam was speaking of “infantcide” or (as in this case) not nurturing for an infant with a simple disability. It was always an “end of life” discussion analogous to hospice care for terminally ill patients. What is also “ghoulish” is the Conservative habit of vilifying women who find themselves in the horrible position of having to terminate their pregnancy in the final trimester (almost always to protect their own lives or because the child has no chance of surviving post-birth – again the situation Northam was addressing). I expect no better from the likes of Kerry and she does not disappoint here.

    1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      The principle of double effect will be debated endlessly in the days to come.

    2. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      I agree with you and wrote about that at the time Northam made his awkward comments.

      https://www.baconsrebellion.com/unraveling-the-ralph-northam-infanticide-controversy/

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        Yes, you did and I thank you for that. An honest read of the interview. Awkward is an understatement… he clearly botched the answer but he does not support infanticide. Even though I expose myself by using absolutes, I dare say no one does. But thanks for the post.

        1. WayneS Avatar

          I recommend you search for, and read, the following article:

          After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?, by Alberto Giubilini & Francesca Minerva

          It was first published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, February 23, 2012.

        2. WayneS Avatar

          And, perhaps check out the Report of the Grand Jury, First District of Philadelphia, MISC NO. 0009901-2008, issued by District Attorney R. Seth Williams.

          It was part of the investigation of Dr. Kermit B. Gosnell, who not only supports infanticide, but also enthusiastically practiced it.

          There are some really sick doctors out there.

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            There are and have always been. I did say using absolutes would get me in trouble. When it comes to Northam and most everybody else (regardless of party) my point stands. I will note that Gosnell rightfully got life in prison with no parole.

          2. WayneS Avatar

            …and I decided to cause you that trouble.

            😉

            I don’t honestly think Ralph Northam wants to go around killing new-born babies. However, you have to admit he made a damned stupid and awkward statement that was easily exploited by his opponents. And you know as well as I do that the Dems would (and have) use such a blunder against a Repub who verbally stepped-in-it like he did. Remember “macaca”?

            PS – Also, if you have not read the JME article I cited, please do so. I think (and hope) you will be thoroughly disgusted by the things the authors promote.

    3. killerhertz Avatar
      killerhertz

      It’s hard to know what Northam’s intent was. I can’t speak for every sane person, but I generally think of ghoul when I picture him in blackface.

    4. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      The 14 States with the strictest abortion laws also have the greatest number of women in poverty and the least support for women.

      When white women and families begin slipping into unplanned child-induced poverty, and when Daddy’s little white girl dies from some online home abortion concoction, things will change.

      https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2022/public-health-paradox-states-abortion-laws-maternal-child-health-outcomes

      Coincidentally, “Eight states — California, Hawaii, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey — have the strictest gun laws and the lowest rates of gun violence.”

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        They actually will not change. I told a poster on another board that 2 women died after an abortion in 2018 – demonstrating the concept of “safe abortions”. His retort was that only 200 died per year prior to R v. W and deemed that acceptable. Conservatives simple do not care about protecting women’s health and are hungry with this taste of power they now have. It all goes back to the 1960s/70s revolution and the audacity that women would like to have sex outside of marriage without risk of being mothers. Contraception is next, mark Thomas’ words.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Well, my sister-in-law had a stroke in 2019. Prior to the stroke she thought Trump a contemptible human being and disliked Republicans. Lately, she’s gone Republican. Tells me all that I need to know. Not all Republicans are brain damaged, but it helps.

          “The Pill is a No-No”. Funny, only about 60% identify as Christian. Of those, about 1/4 are Catholic. The other 3/4 have really bad institutional memory. “The slickest trick the Devil ever pulled was making us think he didn’t exist” or changed his ways.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        They actually will not change. I told a poster on another board that 2 women died after an abortion in 2018 – demonstrating the concept of “safe abortions”. His retort was that only 200 died per year prior to R v. W and deemed that acceptable. Conservatives simple do not care about protecting women’s health and are hungry with this taste of power they now have. It all goes back to the 1960s/70s revolution and the audacity that women would like to have sex outside of marriage without risk of being mothers. Contraception is next, mark Thomas’ words.

      3. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        Then pass a law at the federal level. The truth is that there are probably enough Democrats at the federal level who are afraid of electoral blowback from such a law that it will not be passed with a Democratic majority.

        Obama had the votes to do this but didn’t.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          They’ll overturn it.

        2. Republicans will happily filibuster even the weakest establishment of federal abortion rights. They know midterms are a few months away, and Democrats are not the type to doggedly fight for, well, pretty much anything.

        3. Republicans will happily filibuster even the weakest establishment of federal abortion rights. They know midterms are a few months away, and Democrats are not the type to doggedly fight for, well, pretty much anything.

  3. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    The reason for overturning was that it’s not in the Constitution. There’s a hell of a lot of things not in the Constitution, probably a third or more of the Cabinets to start.

    If it’s not in the Constitution – how does SCOTUS decide , just declare anything that’s not in the Constitution as Un-Constitutional and has to go away?

    The “text” folks are loons… down the rabbit-hole and gone from reality if we have to shut down any Govt agency, law, regulation that is not rooted in text in the Constitution.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Judicial review is also not in the Constitution despite Marbury v Madison. It was abstracted from an interpretation and remains a mere precedent which may be challenged as wrongly decided.

      1. YellowstoneBound1948 Avatar
        YellowstoneBound1948

        I understood Marbury v. Madison, which got me off to a fast start in Con Law. But dead ahead was Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee.

    2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      Just because something, such as an agency, is not mentioned in the Constitution does not mean that it is unconstitutional. Congress passes laws all the time about issued that are not in the Constitution; national parks, for example. The question is always whether Congress had the authority to pass such legislation.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        and my point.

        If there is no mention in the Constitution to which a law or regulation or the existence of an agency, how do the “textualists” … interpret the Constitution?

        Goes far beyond Abortion.

        1. Jack Lucas Avatar
          Jack Lucas

          Messrs. Good and Hall-Sizemore. Regarding the specifics of National Parks, please see Article 4, Section 3: The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States. I think that the Dept. of the Interior and the National Park Service can point to a clear delegation of authority in the US Constitution. (I will agree that some other agencies are on shaky ground in that regard.)

          1. WayneS Avatar

            Here are the types of property Congress is empowered to obtain:

            Article 1, Section 8 (last paragraph)

            [Congress shall have the power] to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;

            As you can see, obtaining land for National Parks is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress.

          2. Jack Lucas Avatar
            Jack Lucas

            Mr. Wayne, according to the analysis in the following citation, https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/was-the-louisiana-purchase-constitutional/#_edn4
            Treaties to Acquire Land (such as the Louisiana Purchase) were commonplace in the late 1700s. During the ratification debates, none of the Constitution’s proponents held that the USA was prohibited from a treaty to acquire land. Given that the Louisiana Purchase was so vast, the purchase of it would be far beyond the ‘Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, etc.’ It is true that Jefferson had to be persuaded that such a treaty would be constitutional, but in the end he and the US Senate agreed that the USA could indeed enter into treaties for the purpose of acquiring land, the purpose of which was far beyond the description contained in Article 1, Section 8.

          3. Jack Lucas Avatar
            Jack Lucas

            Mr. Wayne, according to the analysis in the following citation, https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/was-the-louisiana-purchase-constitutional/#_edn4
            Treaties to Acquire Land (such as the Louisiana Purchase) were commonplace in the late 1700s. During the ratification debates, none of the Constitution’s proponents held that the USA was prohibited from a treaty to acquire land. Given that the Louisiana Purchase was so vast, the purchase of it would be far beyond the ‘Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, etc.’ It is true that Jefferson had to be persuaded that such a treaty would be constitutional, but in the end he and the US Senate agreed that the USA could indeed enter into treaties for the purpose of acquiring land, the purpose of which was far beyond the description contained in Article 1, Section 8.

          4. WayneS Avatar

            Thank you.

            RE: During the ratification debates, none of the Constitution’s proponents held that the USA was prohibited from a treaty to acquire land.

            Yes, but the Constitution is (or at least was intended to be) a document based on negative rights – as in, if it isn’t listed in the document, the government does not have the power to do it.

            Also, please see my response to Mr. Sizemore below (or above, depending upon how you sort the comment threads).

          5. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Oops!

      2. WayneS Avatar

        The question is always whether Congress had the authority to pass such legislation.

        Which I contend they did not, in the case of National Parks.

        1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
          Dick Hall-Sizemore

          You raise a provocative point, one which had not occurred to me. However, it turns out that the Supreme Court disagrees with you. In Kleppe v. New Mexico, the Court ruled that, under Article 4, Section 3, Congress’ power over public lands “is without limitation.” https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/426/529.html

          You may be interested in this report:

          https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL34267.pdf

          1. WayneS Avatar

            Thanks. I know I am on the losing side of that issue. It is an argument that strict constructionists lost a long time ago.

            And, truth be told, I’ve got nothing against the Louisiana Purchase or the creation National Parks. In fact, I like [most of] the western part of the United States and I like National Parks.

            I just wish the Constitution had been amended to specifically allow such purchases before going down that path.

    3. killerhertz Avatar
      killerhertz

      The US Constitution, a largely worthless piece of paper, superseded common law, where abortion was in fact illegal.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        The basis for the nation’s governmental structure and powers and well as the rights and liberties of its citizens is a “worthless piece of paper”?

        1. killerhertz Avatar
          killerhertz

          Yes, increasingly so. During the COVID era I saw very little value that paper provided. People that violated riots weren’t imprisoned. Given the lack of justice, it’s going to happen again and probably soon.

  4. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    While RBG’s critique may be legally credible, it in no way matches Justice Alito’s meander through history to conclude Roe was wrongly concluded. The 50 year precedent could have been sustained. The dissembling, at least misleading, Senate testimony by members of the new majority clearly reflects the politicization of the Court. Once a decision is rendered and endures tests over a half century, its alleged political cast is virtually diminished. Time May tell whether Justice Alito wrongly concluded.

    1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      Or fixed by Obama in 2009. But since his father was black, that topic is off limits.

  5. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    I waited for some female to post on this. Resisted the temptation all weekend. IMHO this is a bigger challenge for our political structure than people realize. You think it was ugly before? Stand by. The Republicans who are cheering may yet be humbled by future election results, because a strong segment of society was fairly comfortable with the compromise the Roe and Casey cases imposed.

    Yes those were political rather than sound legal decisions. But most people believe abortion early in a pregnancy should be available, and the argument has long been on where to draw the line. I think six weeks way too soon, fifteen or 20 weeks is debatable, and beyond that without question a unique human being is being murdered. It may be justifiable homicide in some cases, but it is homicide. One ignored aspect of this story is how medical science had advanced in this field since 1973. That is human life in that womb.

    The other element of the popular compromise is easy and widespread access to contraception, including now the “morning after” options. If the hard-nosed Catholics think the rest of us conservatives are going along with that ridiculous position, seeking to end contraception, claiming even contraception immoral, they will bring the party down in future elections.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      The morning after pill is a form of abortion, is it not? If so, I assume it would be covered under whatever limits are finally decided in Virginia. Contraception that is not based on abortifacient action should not be affected by this, or other, US Supreme Court rulings. At least that’s my guess.

      I somewhat disagree with Kerry that this should be a states’ rights issue. I see no reason why a federal law can’t be passed that covers the entire country.

      In 1973 it seems that SCOTUS was legislating from the bench. This year’s ruling put legislation back where it belongs – with elected legislatures.

      I agree with you that this ruling and, more importantly, the policies expressed for the legislative candidates for office might well affect the November 2022 and November 2023 elections in Virginia.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        At this juncture I believe the only remedy for the Federal Government would be an amendment to the Constitution. I don’t know about you, but I don’t see the elites given up their power of division to compromise for that 67 votes.

        Couple that with they don’t want to be on record, they can’t engage their base if they do that.

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          Why would it need a constitutional amendment? My understanding of the reversal is that the ruling reversed the idea that the constitution contains a right to an abortion. Is there any reason to believe that the reversal implies that the constitution contains a prohibition of abortion?

          1. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            I’m not sure honestly, I was under the impression since Dobbs voided Roe that the Federal Government would need to establish an Amendment. That a Law would not work because it’s not a Federally regulated aspect as per the ruling.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “The morning after pill is a form of abortion, is it not?” No.

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          Thank you for the clarification. If not an abortifacient, is there any reason to suspect that the morning after pill is any more likely to be affected by the recent Roe v wade ruling than say, condoms?

          1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
            Eric the half a troll

            Only if legislators conflate the two. Thomas has stated that legislating contraceptive use is on the table and this may e the vehicle that will be used to that end. I could see a legislative body claiming it is an abortifacient and must be outlawed then the law being upheld in court as allowable contraceptive regulation. So there is reason to suspect.

      3. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Again, nope. It’s the same hormones as the contraceptive pill. Quite different process than the pill that induces abortion at, say, 6 weeks.

        It’s okay though. The people you elect and who your party have put on SCOTUS have no more knowledge of the female body and the reproductive process than you.

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          Hence the reason I added “… is it not?”. I stand corrected. So, let me move on to the next question … if the morning after pill is not an abortifacient, what relevance does it have to the Roe v Wade reversal?

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Griswold… Next! And the Catholic contingent will use the your initial thoughts as reason to go after Griswold.

            Remember, the only thing that changed was the Court, not reality.

      4. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        The morning after pill is only an abortion if you subscribe to life-at-conception theories.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      re: ” The other element of the popular compromise is easy and widespread access to contraception, including now the “morning after” options. If the hard-nosed Catholics think the rest of us conservatives …”

      not just Catholics……… I think it’s also non-Catholic conservatives to your right…. in your tent, vote with you and ya’ll approve of the SCOTUS picks!

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Another conversation I once had with Dr. Falwell Sr, who did not share the Catholic view on contraception. You speak out of ignorance, Larry, per usual.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          so you’re blaming this on Catholics mostly?

    3. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      Don’t know how much you know about Catholics. A recent poll indicated 68% of lay Catholics believe Roe should have left to stand. The “hard-nosed” is certainly Catholic hierarchy who will go along with a “ridiculous position.” It remains to be seen whether November and subsequent election results are humbling to conservatives.

    4. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      It’s strange that people don’t understand one can be indifferent on abortion within reason but against Roe.

      Even with medical advancements today, viability still hovers around 24 weeks. So they could even keep in where Roe established it and be fine.

      The division that has been a result of Roe is very real, I believe I have read back when it was decided that there was close to being law regarding it. Also, that the Due Process Clause was used instead of the Equal Protection Clause because the Equal Rights Amendment was not yet law.

      There are remedies as you stated, which is that at the State level you have more of an impact on Law and policies and those office holders have a better chance of being held accountable for their votes. There is also the ballot initiative that exists in 26 states. Where for a modest $3 million in political dollars and enough signatures you can vote and pass a Amendment regardless of your States Legislature.

      1. Deborah Hommer Avatar
        Deborah Hommer

        Just to put clarification to your statement about putting an end to contraceptives. I don’t think that’s what Justice Thomas was referring to when he mentioned re-considering Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell. I think, as with Roe, he is referencing cases that belong with the states, not federal. I think he’s referring to federalism and the 10th Amendment. These decisions belong to the people and the representatives that they elect through the legislative branch. I do think it’d be a minority of Republicans that would be advocating for the unavailability of contraceptives.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          I made no statement about contraceptives.

          I agree with your take on Justice Thomas’s opinion, as what is not enumerated is vested in the states. I also agree with your statement, that people who completely oppose birth control, abortion on all grounds, and gay marriage are in the minority. Along with the opposite side of the coin who propose abortion up to birth and the varying other opposite coin extreme positions.

          1. Deborah Hommer Avatar
            Deborah Hommer

            I meant my comments to be to directed to Haner as he brought up the subject of contraceptives and concern where Republicans are going with this. I was attempting to clarify confusion.

            Agreed on your assessment regarding extremes on both sides.

  6. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I was in graduate school when Roe v. Wade was announced. My specialized field in political science was constitutional law and the judicial process. When I read that decision, I thought it one of the worst Supreme Court decisions I had read, poorly argued.

    I was also appalled at the idea of abortions being legal. There is a human life growing in that womb and it should not be legal to end that life, except under very narrow circumstances.

    Other than the effect on the unborn child, the worst result of Roe v Wade has been the politicization of the United States Supreme Court. More than any other single factor, the fight over abortion has destroyed most of the credibility of that body. Donald Trump announced that he was going to appoint Justices who would vote to overturn Roe v Wade. Conservatives rejoiced and that stance was likely instrumental in his winning the presidency. Can you imagine the outrage in the past that would have ensued if a presidential candidate had announced that he would appoint only Justices who would vote in a certain way on a specific issue? What will conservatives say when a future Democratic candidate for president promises to appoint only Justices who would vote to restore Constitutional protection for abortion? The Supreme Court has always been political, but it was never this blatant.

    I agree with Steve. Things are going to get ugly. They already have. Look at the uproar over the comments by Yesli Vega, the Republican candidate for Congress in the 7th district, about how pregnancy may be less likely to result from a rape. I will be interested to see how many Republican legislators in competitive districts will be willing to vote to prohibit abortions.

    Finally, Governor Youngkin’s proposal to allow abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy is a total cop out. If abortion is wrong, it is wrong at any time during a pregnancy. According to the CDC, almost 93 percent of abortions are performed at thirteen weeks or less of gestation. Therefore, Youngkin’s proposal would not make much of a dent in the number of abortions performed in Virginia. In fact, he indicated that he would be willing to go to 20 weeks of gestation, which would cover another six percent, according to CEC. In other words, Youngkin’s proposal to prohibit abortions would conceivably allow up to 99 percent of abortions. Youngkin is trying to thread the needle, with an eye on national office. He may also be trying to give those Republicans in competitive districts some cover–they can look like they are voting against abortion without having much of a substantive impact.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      I agree a 15-week bill would not change much in Virginia as most procedures are well before that point. Another aspect of this that the media has ignored is how drastically abortions have already gone down in 50 years, even where the laws are wide open, because attitudes and options have changed. More agree that a human life is in the balance, not just a lump of flesh like an appendix or rib.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Abortions, or surgical abortions?

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          The abortion pill still aborts a fetus after week 15? So how would one enforce a post-15 week ban anyway? From what I have read, the pill is way more dangerous for the woman after 15 or so weeks. So a post 15-week ban on surgical abortions will drive some women to the pill which will cause more post-abortion complications and hospitalizations… and, yes, deaths. Why would one legislate such a thing knowing such an outcome is certain (and it is) and knowing the impact in reducing abortions is negligible? For politics… the Youngkin bottom line…

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            It’s safety rolls off after week 10. Probably has to do with the ability of the body to sluff off detritus.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      “When I read that decision, I thought it one of the worst Supreme Court decisions I had read, poorly argued.”

      Until the one that overturned it.

      It’s not like Roe v. Wade did not withstand challenges and was upheld by Conservative justices, e.g., Sandra Day, O’Connor. It only took 5 religious zealots.

      1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        It only takes one zealot president to ignore the Supreme Court. See John Marshall and Andy Jackson.

    3. Jack Lucas Avatar
      Jack Lucas

      Mr. Hall-Sizemore, while not directly on point, remember the reaction when a recent Presidential candidate promised to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court. See the Youtube video from 30 June 2020 containing then candidate Biden’s promise, thus shoring up his standing among his potential voting base. I hate “whataboutism” but in this case, we know the conservative reaction would have been. As I recall, the reaction was not that dramatic (but since my memory is not what it used to be, I am willing to stand corrected.)

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I am not happy about Biden’s promise, but that is not the same as a presidential candidate saying he would use how a potential Justice would vote on a specific issue as the criterion for appointment.

  7. Teddy007 Avatar
    Teddy007

    The issue is that everyone knows that if the Republicans win control of the Virginia State Senate in 2023 and maintain control of the state House, then the Republicans will ban abortion in Virginia. There is no argument, no position, no analysis or reasoning that will keep the Republicans from banning abortion if given the chance.
    So now politics in Virginia will be on whether wants to keep some form of access to abortion or to ban abortion in Virginia. It will overshadow every other issue until one party or the other becomes dominant.

  8. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    Let’s get down to brass tacks: Virginia elections. Sounds like 15-weeks is a reasonable compromise for us. Much harsher and Repubs risk losing ground in Va. instead of gaining ground. Then we have the special cases to hash out.

    Overall we have at least three obvious wedge issues in the USA: abortion rights, gun rights, and fossil fuels phase out. In those issues, I will suggest there is a minority controlling because the issue is of extreme importance to them and non-negotiable.

  9. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    It’s nice to be able to post again after “Disqus” wouldn’t load for several days.

    I personally think that, at least in early stages, the decision to have an abortion should be left to the woman. I don’t know exactly where I’d draw the line as a legislator. An important question for me is: When would the fetus feel pain? We seem to be worried about pain during the execution of serial killers and (rightfully so) in the treatment of animals. So why isn’t the issue important in the abortion debate? Needless to say, this question is too deep for most legislators and, certainly, MSM journalists. I don’t recall anyone from the Post asking Delegate Tran or Governor Northam this question.

    Griswold and Roe are based on fantasy and aren’t worth the paper they were printed on. Having said that and had I been on the Court, I probably would have tried to find a way to be closer to Roberts, but also including a vicious attack on Blackman’s Folly. I’d probably add some mockery of those who think penumbras and emanations provide greater protection of rights than a constitutional amendment and hundreds of years of legal history.

    Those who raise a question about whether a federal law would stand raise, IMO, a reasonable question. Nevertheless, a federal statute protecting access to abortion and providing agreed upon regulations would likely have prevented the mess in which we find ourselves. And serious blame must fall on upon my distant cousin former President Obama.

    Having campaigned on protecting abortion rights, Obama, who had both a Democratic House and Senate (including for some time, a filibuster-proof Senate) did absolutely nothing. Obama could have easily obtained federal legislation addressing abortion. Also, future attacks from abortion opponents would have easily been stopped by filibuster. Needless to say, the waitress with a degree from Boston University would be cheering the filibuster.

    And what is more, challenges to that legislation from both sides would have come fast. They would have been decided by a different Supreme Court that would have most certainly affirmed the basic tenets of the law. It would have been an easy solution for all but the extremes on both sides.

    However, since the Establishment and the MSM never truly looked beyond the fact that the President’s father was black and, thus, his son is beyond criticism, the topic is forbidden.

Leave a Reply