Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs. Wade

The only place you might see substantial discussion is a message board for legal scholars/students. The next week minimum online in almost all americancentric forums is going to be about primal screaming from one side, and arrogant gloating from the other.

The standard line in conservative politics (that abortion is murder) isn't supportable by the text of the Old Testament, which outlines distinct punishments for murder and for inducing a pregnant woman (unsolicited) to abort. Causing an abortion isn't even sin in the Old Testament; it just yields a fine. And it's true that Jesus doesn't explicitly address any of that to supersede or revise it.

The 'valid Catholic reason' for the a doctrine of ensoulment that prohibits abortion is just papal authority. Different popes, saints, and schools within Catholicism have had different beliefs on ensoulment; it's not like the reasoning has been decisive here.

Fucking up other people's lives for the sake of obeying a series of 'infallible' flip-floppers is in fact embarrassing and not respectable.

And even from a religious perspective, criticizing particular sects of Christianity as unmoored from their own sacred texts and traditions with respect to this issue is a perfectly valid line of critique of those sects and their adherents. That's what the GP is essentially doing, informally asking what the rational connection to the sacred texts and tradition even are on this issue. Just because the Catholic church has an answer to that question doesn't mean it's satisfactory.

So it's bad law for 3 reasons:

(1) Stare Decisis and Reliance: two legal standards that had restrained even right-wing courts for years. It's legal, but "bad", for the Court to overturn a long-standing law that people organize their lives around (as they did post sexual-revolution). So the standard isn't "is it wrong," it's "is it egregiously wrong." And the court has found multiple times that Roe is fine.

(2) The decision doesn't take aim at _just_ abortion. It takes aim at the right to privacy. This right is pretty strong, overall: the 9th Amendment says "just bc a right is not explicit, that doesn't mean it isn't real"; the 3rd, 4th and others say "the gov't can't just meddle in your affairs without real justification;" the 14th says "this right is universal." Implying this right is weak is iffy at best, and DEFINITELY doesn't meet the "egregiously wrong" standard.

(3) The new tests are, uh, speculative.

(3a)They rely on historical analysis that is contextually-driven at best. Are we talking abortion, reproductive healthcare, or women's rights? That's a matter of framing, not law, and will lead to dif conclusions, which makes it a bad test. [Note: more on this when Obergefell is inevitably challenged...]

(3b) The tests lead to dif conclusions than Alito reached. Abortion has been legal in the US for longer than it's been illegal; it wasn't banned nationwide until the 20th century, because it was explicitly legal under british common law. Even 19th century regulations were effectively just regulations of methods (poison control), not abortion itself. I'd argue "a cultural practice referenced in Shakespeare, explicitly addressed in 400 years of british common law, and that we kept for 100+ years in the US, including when the Constitution was written" is pretty deep. Besides, it's applied differently in different cases (how far back is "deeply rooted," anyway?). TLDR: arbitrary = bad test.

All this to say: I'm pissed bc it's bad policy, but I'm ALSO annoyed at the bad legal analysis. Like - there are better arguments! It feels like an F U.

There’s not a large number tyrannical Hindus, Jews, Muslims, or Atheists gerrymandering their way into office to push their religious nonsense into laws that threaten my life in the United States. I think singling out Christians is perfectly fine in this case.

There is a filibuster at the Federal level that prevents a majority of elected officials from passing laws. The electoral college can prevent the candidate with the most votes from being elected. These are both tools that allow a minority to block what a majority of voters want. Three of the SC justices were appointed during a president's term who did not win the popular vote.

At the state level there is no filibuster meaning that a dissenting minority has no way to protect themselves. Re-districting (gerrymandering) also neuters the voting power of minority groups.

There is a bias for majority rule at the state level, and minority rule at the federal level. So yes, it's minority views. This is why issues like Slavery and segregation were argued as "states rights". The way conservatives prefer our government to be set up is with a weak federal government and strong state governments so that a localized majority can enforce moral legislation on a disenfranchised minority without Federal intervention. It has always been about power and any arguments about "returning the decision to the people" is no different that someone in 1964 saying it should be up to the states whether or not minorities can use the same bathroom as white people.