Jill Filipovic is full of shit as usual

“Sending a decision off to be decided by legislatures can be many things by undemocratic it ain’t.”

Spot on

The lady doth project too much

The wailing butt hurt because a leftist dominated court is now a rightist dominated court is almost as hilarious as the British media’s misunderstanding of what the decision actually means. See also the 2nd amendment.

“Sending a decision off to be decided by legislatures can be many things but undemocratic it ain’t.”
You so sure of this? The States can pass what laws they like. But implementing them is going to end up in the courts, isn’t it? Just at State rather than Federal level. So the same cabal of arts graduates referred to in my earlier post. Do you really think the outcome will be democratic

@Lockers: ’The lady doth project too much.’

Stealing that!

Lets face it, her real problem is that she can no longer use the Federal hammer to force abortion onto those states that reject Democratic rule.

She absolutely hates that a lot of states will introduce laws restricting abortion far more than Roe v Wade and Casey did. Some will have minor restrictions, some major and in others it will be effectively illegal.

Buses, trains, planes and vehicular transport between states remain unaffected by this decision, so those wishing an abortion in a state which doesn’t support it are free to go somewhere that does.

Hell, given all the fuss, I’m sure that they can Go Fund Me every abortion from now ’til eternity, should they so wish.

But this ain’t really about that. It’s about losing the right to force their Canaanite practices on those who would rather not murder the unborn.

Moloch can go phuq himself.

Al-Jabeeba this morning was full of whining about the SC ‘removing a constitutional right’. Pure propaganda….

“Jill Filipovic Is Full Of Shit As Usual”

Surely it’s her right to go to a special clinic and have the shit chopped up inside her and aspirated from her body?

@Addolff. That would be the classic liberal position. But classical liberalism is a crock of shit. People do not function as individuals. They are social animals & function as part of societies. And societies have to have some sort of consensus about what is acceptable & what isn’t. The essential problem with Roe-Wade. There’s never been a consensus about it. On the other hand, doubt if there will be consensus at State level. Progressives have been intent on destroying consenting society & imposing consensus for decades.

First, the Constitution protects the right to travel, which necessarily includes the right to interstate travel. This is a fundamental constitutional right that has been repeatedly recognized by the courts. During the debates over the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the right to travel was invoked as one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship that the amendment was designed to protect from state infringement. For a state to prohibit (or even penalize) the act of leaving that state and doing something perfectly lawful in another state would violate this constitutional safeguard.

Second, an anti-abortion interstate travel ban would run afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause, a legal doctrine which holds that the Commerce Clause, in addition to authorizing congressional regulation of economic activity that occurs between the states, also forbids the states from enacting their own interstate economic barriers.

https://reason.com/2022/05/13/what-happens-if-states-ban-out-of-state-travel-for-abortion/

bloke in spain,

“The essential problem with Roe-Wade. There’s never been a consensus about it. On the other hand, doubt if there will be consensus at State level. Progressives have been intent on destroying consenting society & imposing consensus for decades.”

The problem with Roe-Wade is that it killed the process of debate around the subject. Once it was passed, no-one had to reach out to the people who thought that legalised abortion was a bad thing and try to convince them otherwise. It left this issue kicking around for decades.

In Europe, people had to make the argument, stand on a platform of supporting it, or at least, risking being kicked out of office after doing so. They had to do that, and then for some time face opposition. But when was the last time that you heard a political party with any muscle talking about abortion in Europe, except in Ireland?

That’s what is going to happen in the USA now. My guess is that 45 states will have it legalised within 2 years. In a decade, there might be 2 or 3 left. And people will just drive the two hours from Arkansas to a neighbouring state in the same way that Irish women have been catching cheap flights to the UK for years. In 10 years, no-one is going to care about abortion in US politics.

Matthew L: Why not? Everything else does.

If you look at what the courts have decided is economic activity falling under the Commerce clause you will find an enormous variety of things that most would not call economic, e.g., not growing crops counts.

So for a transaction where money does change hands to not count, the judge would have to use contorted reasoning at least on the same level as the original Roe vs. Wade decision…

Oh. I see.

John Galt, interesting post; thank you. Could a state criminalise a woman for having been pregnant, now no longer being so without having given birth? ie “what have you done with the baby?”

I ask this as a legal question, not as a pov about abortion.

Nautical: The US constitution forbids states from prosecuting somebody for engaging in legal activity in another state where the activity is legal is that other state. So a state that bans abortion cannot prosecute somebody who had a legal abortion in a state where abortion is legal.

Boring nerd that I am, I spent yesterday afternoon reading through the 212 pages of the SCOTUS report.

Do states still have those laws quoted in filme noire about crossing state lines with a lady for immoral purposes ?

Trudeau called the decision ‘horrific’ sadly I doubt any reporter will point out to him that when the same question came to the Canadian Supreme Court they ruled abortion wasn’t a right and it was for the politicians to sort it out, which they did.
So basically the same ruling as in the US.
Once again he’ll take any bandwagon and jump on it regardless

Kinda hard to call the Supreme Court illegitimate without calling Congress and the president illegitimate as well.

It’s almost like she didn’t take more than two seconds to think through her idea. She actually just agreed with the general sentiment of the January 6 Capitol protesters, even if for different reasons.