[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Kaiserholt]

So we have two adults with [insert example], who were born with [insert example], grew through childhood with [insert example], lived long enough into adulthood with [insert example] to meet each other, and have managed to have a child...but they believe their child is not their equal when it comes to dealing with [insert example]? That use of [insert example] is not flippant, because I know full well my own health concerns, and I'm not going to assume that any children I have are not going to be able to handle what I handled.

No need to be flippant.

You don’t know what genetic markers you carry. Sorry if you think you do; you are mistaken. Not every disease shows itself; not every disease is guaranteed even though the parents might be carriers.

The example mentioned are people I know. There was know knowledge of CF in the family line. There might have been deaths to it in the past and yet it was not understood what it was.

You also don’t know the full gambit of types of diseases and the level of how nasty they are. The CF example; the woman had a sister who had such an extreme case; the kid in question lived all of two weeks drugged and under machinery. An autopsy happened and it was reported her organs looked like she had lived with the disease for 20 years.

Even today; there have been great improvements and yet a person needs a team of doctors for eating and another team for breathing. Not everybody has the means to support that….

You might want to look into the outcomes of diseases; the ranges, etc. You also might want to look at what people can handle before you start preaching what people should be doing.

Flippant as a rhetorical device, though I understand why you wouldn't grasp that. Understanding cause is not the same as understanding effect. A bad illness is a bad illness, whether you know the technical term or not. I'm not going to pretend that people in previous generations didn't understand death just because they don't have your preferred word for it. Yet regardless, that is...how many generations of that [insert example] to greater or lesser degree, yet somehow you and I are standing here to talk about it today?

[Spirit of Hope]

Yeah, violating precedent for no reason is dumb. Not much I can do to stop it, but I can still say it is dumb and undermines the legitimacy of SCOTUS.

Violating precedent is by itself not a bad thing. Bad precedent is bad precedent, which is why I'm glad that Dred Scott is no longer Supreme Court precedent, even if it wasn't the Supreme Court that overturned it. Even on the legislative side, there is a reason why Prohibition is no longer an Amendment to the Constitution.

I have long ago given up on the "legitimacy" of SCOTUS being a valid argument, if it only loses legitimacy because the side one doesn't like is using SCOTUS in the same way as the side one does like.

Violating precedent causes problems for the rule of law, as it causes uncertainty in how the the law will be interpreted from case to case. This is a big issue, as unequal interpretation of the law can lead to all kinds of problems. Now is repealing Roe going to cause major issues to appear overnight? No, but I think it is a bad thing for a number of reasons.

Dred Scott wasn't gotten ride of by changing precedent, and neither was prohibition, they were changed by constitutional amendments. There are better comparisons, but I would argue that most of them don't show the same violation of precedent that repealing Roe would.

Legitimacy is an important part of the court, if people stop seeing courts as impartial, and instead as majorly partisan, it would cause major problems with implementing laws. Again, I don't think that repealing Roe will cause this, but I do think it would be a bad dent in the wall.

[The Black Forrest]

No need to be flippant.

You don’t know what genetic markers you carry. Sorry if you think you do; you are mistaken. Not every disease shows itself; not every disease is guaranteed even though the parents might be carriers.

The example mentioned are people I know. There was know knowledge of CF in the family line. There might have been deaths to it in the past and yet it was not understood what it was.

You also don’t know the full gambit of types of diseases and the level of how nasty they are. The CF example; the woman had a sister who had such an extreme case; the kid in question lived all of two weeks drugged and under machinery. An autopsy happened and it was reported her organs looked like she had lived with the disease for 20 years.

Even today; there have been great improvements and yet a person needs a team of doctors for eating and another team for breathing. Not everybody has the means to support that….

You might want to look into the outcomes of diseases; the ranges, etc. You also might want to look at what people can handle before you start preaching what people should be doing.

Flippant as a rhetorical device, though I understand why you wouldn't grasp that. Understanding cause is not the same as understanding effect. A bad illness is a bad illness, whether you know the technical term or not. I'm not going to pretend that people in previous generations didn't understand death just because they don't have your preferred word for it. Yet regardless, that is...how many generations of that [insert example] to greater or lesser degree, yet somehow you and I are standing here to talk about it today?

No…..actually…..you are lecturing; we are not talking.

You have not shown me anything you understand what it means for said families. You have a preconception of what things should be and are trying to defend it.

[Kaiserholt]

Violating precedent is by itself not a bad thing. Bad precedent is bad precedent, which is why I'm glad that Dred Scott is no longer Supreme Court precedent, even if it wasn't the Supreme Court that overturned it. Even on the legislative side, there is a reason why Prohibition is no longer an Amendment to the Constitution.

I have long ago given up on the "legitimacy" of SCOTUS being a valid argument, if it only loses legitimacy because the side one doesn't like is using SCOTUS in the same way as the side one does like.

Violating precedent causes problems for the rule of law, as it causes uncertainty in how the the law will be interpreted from case to case. This is a big issue, as unequal interpretation of the law can lead to all kinds of problems. Now is repealing Roe going to cause major issues to appear overnight? No, but I think it is a bad thing for a number of reasons.

Dred Scott wasn't gotten ride of by changing precedent, and neither was prohibition, they were changed by constitutional amendments. There are better comparisons, but I would argue that most of them don't show the same violation of precedent that repealing Roe would.

Legitimacy is an important part of the court, if people stop seeing courts as impartial, and instead as majorly partisan, it would cause major problems with implementing laws. Again, I don't think that repealing Roe will cause this, but I do think it would be a bad dent in the wall.

So if the new SCOTUS precedent is that states decide, how does that disrupt the rule of law in California, Illinois, Maryland, or New York? Will Sacramento not be sure of its policies regarding abortion? Is the California Supreme Court not old enough to handle their own precedent? If California has issues with unequal interpretation of California law, I'd say that's a matter for Sacramento. And if the issue is interstate, there is also established precedent for that, both at the federal and state level. One precedent replacing another precedent, even if that precedent is Roe v Wade, isn't going to cause the kind of long term disruption you might be implying.

If courts cease to be impartial, me ignoring the lack of impartiality for politeness sake does not make them impartial. When a wall has been there for over two centuries, there are going to be dings...and rends...and patches...and paint overs. If you're going to be upset about a ding I make, but dismiss the ding your buddy made, is the wall more or less intact?

[Spirit of Hope]

Violating precedent causes problems for the rule of law, as it causes uncertainty in how the the law will be interpreted from case to case. This is a big issue, as unequal interpretation of the law can lead to all kinds of problems. Now is repealing Roe going to cause major issues to appear overnight? No, but I think it is a bad thing for a number of reasons.

Dred Scott wasn't gotten ride of by changing precedent, and neither was prohibition, they were changed by constitutional amendments. There are better comparisons, but I would argue that most of them don't show the same violation of precedent that repealing Roe would.

Legitimacy is an important part of the court, if people stop seeing courts as impartial, and instead as majorly partisan, it would cause major problems with implementing laws. Again, I don't think that repealing Roe will cause this, but I do think it would be a bad dent in the wall.

So if the new SCOTUS precedent is that states decide, how does that disrupt the rule of law in California, Illinois, Maryland, or New York? Will Sacramento not be sure of its policies regarding abortion? Is the California Supreme Court not old enough to handle their own precedent? If California has issues with unequal interpretation of California law, I'd say that's a matter for Sacramento. And if the issue is interstate, there is also established precedent for that, both at the federal and state level. One precedent replacing another precedent, even if that precedent is Roe v Wade, isn't going to cause the kind of long term disruption you might be implying.

If courts cease to be impartial, me ignoring the lack of impartiality for politeness sake does not make them impartial. When a wall has been there for over two centuries, there are going to be dings...and rends...and patches...and paint overs. If you're going to be upset about a ding I make, but dismiss the ding your buddy made, is the wall more or less intact?

As I said the issue isn't Roe in it of itself destroying the rule of law. The problem is if people believe that the courts are not impartial, but politically motivated, they will stop using courts for conflict resolution. This can create a lot of problems.

To repeat, I don't think repealing Roe is going to immediately lead to this. I am however worried that Republicans mounting a decades long attempt to get Judges on SCOTUS to overrule Roe will cause the court to become more political, and cause people to view it as less impartial. It doesn't even mater if the court is becoming less impartial, even people thinking it is less impartial can cause problems.

As to the point about hypocrisy, please point to a precedent that has been around as long and is as impactful that the court then overturned that you don't see me complaining about. I've complained about the court in other cases where they ignored precedent or made what I feel are bad calls in the past. In general I believe that the US does need to do some house cleaning and update our constitution to incorporate how our nation has changed in 200 years and better understandings of political science, but that is not a discussion for this thread. Honestly at this point we have wandered rather far from abortion so I'm going to stop the conversation here. If you want to keep it up I'm active over in the American politics thread.

[Arlenton]

So if the new SCOTUS precedent is that states decide, how does that disrupt the rule of law in California, Illinois, Maryland, or New York? Will Sacramento not be sure of its policies regarding abortion? Is the California Supreme Court not old enough to handle their own precedent? If California has issues with unequal interpretation of California law, I'd say that's a matter for Sacramento. And if the issue is interstate, there is also established precedent for that, both at the federal and state level. One precedent replacing another precedent, even if that precedent is Roe v Wade, isn't going to cause the kind of long term disruption you might be implying.

If courts cease to be impartial, me ignoring the lack of impartiality for politeness sake does not make them impartial. When a wall has been there for over two centuries, there are going to be dings...and rends...and patches...and paint overs. If you're going to be upset about a ding I make, but dismiss the ding your buddy made, is the wall more or less intact?

As I said the issue isn't Roe in it of itself destroying the rule of law. The problem is if people believe that the courts are not impartial, but politically motivated, they will stop using courts for conflict resolution. This can create a lot of problems.

To repeat, I don't think repealing Roe is going to immediately lead to this. I am however worried that Republicans mounting a decades long attempt to get Judges on SCOTUS to overrule Roe will cause the court to become more political, and cause people to view it as less impartial. It doesn't even mater if the court is becoming less impartial, even people thinking it is less impartial can cause problems.

As to the point about hypocrisy, please point to a precedent that has been around as long and is as impactful that the court then overturned that you don't see me complaining about. I've complained about the court in other cases where they ignored precedent or made what I feel are bad calls in the past. In general I believe that the US does need to do some house cleaning and update our constitution to incorporate how our nation has changed in 200 years and better understandings of political science, but that is not a discussion for this thread. Honestly at this point we have wandered rather far from abortion so I'm going to stop the conversation here. If you want to keep it up I'm active over in the American politics thread.

So, if the SCOTUS's legitimacy is destroyed to the vast majority of the population for whatever reason, could there be a change in how what is constitutional or not is determined?

[Myrensis]

I don't think SCOTUS will actually overturn Roe v Wade, precisely because the conservative justices are hacks and know it would create a major backlash, and potentially give Democrats cover for expanding the court.

What I think is more likely is that they'll up hold Roe v Wade...while casually greenlighting all the Texas inspired bullshit restrictions on it, so that the end result is that abortion is technically legal but functionally impossible to get anywhere Republicans have power.

Trusting that, having used up the 10 minutes a year they budget for actually paying attention to anything, American voters will happily go back to staring at the wall and drooling and burbling about "Roe v Wade was upheld, don't know what the Democrats are still complaining about. Hurr durr, both parties are the same."

[Fauzjhia]

I don't think SCOTUS will actually overturn Roe v Wade, precisely because the conservative justices are hacks and know it would create a major backlash, and potentially give Democrats cover for expanding the court.

What I think is more likely is that they'll up hold Roe v Wade...while casually greenlighting all the Texas inspired bullshit restrictions on it, so that the end result is that abortion is technically legal but functionally impossible to get anywhere Republicans have power.

Trusting that, having used up the 10 minutes a year they budget for actually paying attention to anything, American voters will happily go back to staring at the wall and drooling and burbling about "Roe v Wade was upheld, don't know what the Democrats are still complaining about. Hurr durr, both parties are the same."

you forgot that conservative can also play that game.
the very moment democrats will increase the number of justice in the court, conservatives will follow they can make nomination. This idea might seem a good option to protect Roe vs Wade, in the very short term, but in the long, the SCOTUS will just devolve into pure politics and you don't want to play that game. (if its not just blocked because reforming the constitution is likely impossible.)

Anything is possible. but conservatives justice just greenlighted the way to overturn Roe vs Wade, so they can do it. and democrats do not have any real answer but international courts, (by claiming outlawing abortion would be in contradiction to treaties signed by the USA.)

We all know they are going to weaken abortions protection, question remain what exactly ? And what could follow such a ruling. Politicization of the justice ?

[Prima Scriptura]

I don't think SCOTUS will actually overturn Roe v Wade, precisely because the conservative justices are hacks and know it would create a major backlash, and potentially give Democrats cover for expanding the court.

What I think is more likely is that they'll up hold Roe v Wade...while casually greenlighting all the Texas inspired bullshit restrictions on it, so that the end result is that abortion is technically legal but functionally impossible to get anywhere Republicans have power.

Trusting that, having used up the 10 minutes a year they budget for actually paying attention to anything, American voters will happily go back to staring at the wall and drooling and burbling about "Roe v Wade was upheld, don't know what the Democrats are still complaining about. Hurr durr, both parties are the same."

I actually think that the Mississippi law will be upheld by and the Texas law will be struck down. The vigilante nature of the Texas law makes it constitutionally questionable.

[Fauzjhia]

I actually think that the Mississippi law will be upheld by and the Texas law will be struck down. The vigilante nature of the Texas law makes it constitutionally questionable.

you just forgot it can be easily remplaced once Roe vs Wade fall. which will happen if the Mississippi law is held.
at the very least, Texas will just adopt the same law as Mississippi.

Beside the Goal of the Texas law, is simply to go to court and challenge Roe Vs Wade, Mississippi is just doing sooner.

[Myrensis]

I don't think SCOTUS will actually overturn Roe v Wade, precisely because the conservative justices are hacks and know it would create a major backlash, and potentially give Democrats cover for expanding the court.

What I think is more likely is that they'll up hold Roe v Wade...while casually greenlighting all the Texas inspired bullshit restrictions on it, so that the end result is that abortion is technically legal but functionally impossible to get anywhere Republicans have power.

Trusting that, having used up the 10 minutes a year they budget for actually paying attention to anything, American voters will happily go back to staring at the wall and drooling and burbling about "Roe v Wade was upheld, don't know what the Democrats are still complaining about. Hurr durr, both parties are the same."

you forgot that conservative can also play that game.
the very moment democrats will increase the number of justice in the court, conservatives will follow they can make nomination. This idea might seem a good option to protect Roe vs Wade, in the very short term, but in the long, the SCOTUS will just devolve into pure politics and you don't want to play that game. (if its not just blocked because reforming the constitution is likely impossible.)

Anything is possible. but conservatives justice just greenlighted the way to overturn Roe vs Wade, so they can do it. and democrats do not have any real answer but international courts, (by claiming outlawing abortion would be in contradiction to treaties signed by the USA.)

We all know they are going to weaken abortions protection, question remain what exactly ? And what could follow such a ruling. Politicization of the justice ?

Remind me why we don't want to play that game?

The court is all ready partisan, and Democrats winning 5 of the last 8 Presidential elections (7, going by actual votes) has resulted in....a 6 to 3 Republican majority on the court, with it probably being at least a decade or more before there's any possibility of shifting the balance, assuming they're in a position to do so when the oldest Republican Justices retire/die, and assuming that we don't end up with a 7 to 2 split since Breyer seems intent on following RBG's example and letting a Republican President pry his corpse off the bench instead of retiring when there's a possibility of being replaced by someone who actually shares his legal philosophy.

This argument is essentially, "Democrats shouldn't pack the courts because then they would only control it when they win elections, instead of...never controlling it regardless of how many elections they win."

But again, that's exactly why I don't think the Republican Justices will actually overturn Roe. Why risk the backlash and give Democrats incentive and public support for Court packing when they can just hollow it out while blowing smoke up gullible voters asses about how the fact that they didn't overturn it proves how totally non-partisan the court is and therefore definitely should not be expanded or changed!

[Fauzjhia]

I agree with your analysis on the court.
the court is already partisan and set to be recognized as such.

it might be inevitable.
however, I highly doubt, democrats have any way to fight back. (they need more senators, and the state often lean republicans. ) you illustrated it well.
despite the democrats winning 5 of the last 8 presidential election, republican have an advantages at SCOTUS because the way the country is organised favor the republican party. Gerry-mandering only aggravate it.
the danger with this move, courts are going to become political instruments, but it might already be the case. so you might have nothing to lose by packing the courts with democrats, because what ever you could lose with that move, you will lose it anyway.

however, when I read this article I have no choice bu to disagree about Roe vs Wade, I believe republican think they could get away with such a move.
also. let me remind you that the republican are not exactly QUALIFIED to sit at SCOTUS, they were nominated for political reason, (but when I told this argument to my teacher, she gave me a C)

[New haven america]

you forgot that conservative can also play that game.
the very moment democrats will increase the number of justice in the court, conservatives will follow they can make nomination. This idea might seem a good option to protect Roe vs Wade, in the very short term, but in the long, the SCOTUS will just devolve into pure politics and you don't want to play that game. (if its not just blocked because reforming the constitution is likely impossible.)

Anything is possible. but conservatives justice just greenlighted the way to overturn Roe vs Wade, so they can do it. and democrats do not have any real answer but international courts, (by claiming outlawing abortion would be in contradiction to treaties signed by the USA.)

We all know they are going to weaken abortions protection, question remain what exactly ? And what could follow such a ruling. Politicization of the justice ?

Remind me why we don't want to play that game?

The court is all ready partisan, and Democrats winning 5 of the last 8 Presidential elections (7, going by actual votes) has resulted in....a 6 to 3 Republican majority on the court, with it probably being at least a decade or more before there's any possibility of shifting the balance, assuming they're in a position to do so when the oldest Republican Justices retire/die, and assuming that we don't end up with a 7 to 2 split since Breyer seems intent on following RBG's example and letting a Republican President pry his corpse off the bench instead of retiring when there's a possibility of being replaced by someone who actually shares his legal philosophy.

This argument is essentially, "Democrats shouldn't pack the courts because then they would only control it when they win elections, instead of...never controlling it regardless of how many elections they win."

But again, that's exactly why I don't think the Republican Justices will actually overturn Roe. Why risk the backlash and give Democrats incentive and public support for Court packing when they can just hollow it out while blowing smoke up gullible voters asses about how the fact that they didn't overturn it proves how totally non-partisan the court is and therefore definitely should not be expanded or changed!

Because there's no possibility of the Dems packing the court.

Despite all prior evidence they still don't view most of the Reps as the malicious and fascistic entity that most of the party currently is.

Basically, to most Dems the Reps are politicians with differing beliefs but still friends and fellow countrymen who just wants America to succeed, while to most Reps, the Dems are a political enemy that's keeping them from achieving their fascistic and kleptocratic goals and needs to be destroyed at any cost.

Like, you know how in Russia when people challenge Putin they coincidentally end up falling out of 20 story buildings or accidently drinking tea with nerve agents? That's what most of the Reps want to happen to the Dems and they don't even try to hide that fact.

So it's not gonna happen. The most likely response will be "Oh shucks. Well that's just their beliefs and they got this round. Better luck next time."

[Page]

Why doesn't the 52 - 48 Republican majority Senate pack the courts, they wondered...

[Cameroi]

i would find it easier to sympathize with the anti-abortion cult, if it weren't for the simple fact that as the multiplier for everything else we're doing wrong, excess human population, by being that multiplier, is the root cause just about everything that is threatening the extinction of its own species.
multiplier of greenhouse gas emissions, multiplier of habitat loss causing loss of species diversity, and increasing the risk of cross species viral infections.
the list of specifics is rather long, even risks to personal freedom. of course people don't want to look where they don't want to see.

can't force people to be sane, but pandemics will likely continue to proliferate as long as birthrate exceeds attrition rate resulting in continued population increase. all the factors driving climate deterioration and the rest of the lot.

a soul that isn't born, isn't lost, its born to other parents and most likely on other of the billions of worlds accross other solar systems that support life.

if we were in danger from being too few, all that multiply and anti-abortion would make sense, but reality is we're just the opposite.

[Dakini]

Until societies start taking into account that the issue of abortion is not just about one life, but two or more lives, conversations on this topic cannot be honest. Fact is, medical science has advanced since Roe v Wade, so the question has to be asked if viability is truly the reason that it was back in 1973…nearly fifty years ago.

Viability is irrelevant.

You can't force someone to give you a kidney to save your life if they don't want to give it to you. You can't even force someone to donate some blood to you to save your life if they don't want to give it to you. And you're indisputably a viable person.

Why do you think it's okay to force pregnant people to use their bodies to sustain another if they do not want to?

The whole viability argument is a total red herring, even if you ignore the fact that no person is attempting to abort a viable fetus without a good reason (e.g. it's killing them, the fetus is dying or doomed).

[Restored England]

Remind me why we don't want to play that game?

The court is all ready partisan, and Democrats winning 5 of the last 8 Presidential elections (7, going by actual votes) has resulted in....a 6 to 3 Republican majority on the court, with it probably being at least a decade or more before there's any possibility of shifting the balance, assuming they're in a position to do so when the oldest Republican Justices retire/die, and assuming that we don't end up with a 7 to 2 split since Breyer seems intent on following RBG's example and letting a Republican President pry his corpse off the bench instead of retiring when there's a possibility of being replaced by someone who actually shares his legal philosophy.

This argument is essentially, "Democrats shouldn't pack the courts because then they would only control it when they win elections, instead of...never controlling it regardless of how many elections they win."

But again, that's exactly why I don't think the Republican Justices will actually overturn Roe. Why risk the backlash and give Democrats incentive and public support for Court packing when they can just hollow it out while blowing smoke up gullible voters asses about how the fact that they didn't overturn it proves how totally non-partisan the court is and therefore definitely should not be expanded or changed!

Because there's no possibility of the Dems packing the court.

Despite all prior evidence they still don't view most of the Reps as the malicious and fascistic entity that most of the party currently is.

Basically, to most Dems the Reps are politicians with differing beliefs but still friends and fellow countrymen who just wants America to succeed, while to most Reps, the Dems are a political enemy that's keeping them from achieving their fascistic and kleptocratic goals and needs to be destroyed at any cost.

Like, you know how in Russia when people challenge Putin they coincidentally end up falling out of 20 story buildings or accidently drinking tea with nerve agents? That's what most of the Reps want to happen to the Dems and they don't even try to hide that fact.

So it's not gonna happen. The most likely response will be "Oh shucks. Well that's just their beliefs and they got this round. Better luck next time."

Both parties are authoritarian and fascist at their core, both completely dominated by Wall Street and the military industrial complex and national security establishment. Only a new, populist, incorruptible party, poaching working class votes of all races from the corporate, mainstream parties, can save America.

[Sundiata]

Roe v Wade might finally be gone in the United States. The only way to stop this is to pass a federal abortion law which the Democrats in Congress won't do. If the Supreme Court gets rid of Roe v Wade, abortion will be legal on a state by state basis. It will be on Republicans to pass a federal ban on abortion.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Roe v Wade might finally be gone in the United States. The only way to stop this is to pass a federal abortion law which the Democrats in Congress won't do. if the Supreme Court gets rid of Roe v Wade, abortion will be legal on a state by state basis. It will be on Republicans to pass a federal ban on abortion.

You are as always welcome to emigrate to the hellhole of Paraguay and take your bedfellows with you.

[Kvatchdom]

Roe v Wade might finally be gone in the United States. The only way to stop this is to pass a federal abortion law which the Democrats in Congress won't do. if the Supreme Court gets rid of Roe v Wade abortion will be legal on a state by state basis.

The US is truly barbaric when the rights of millions of women hinge on the whims of a few unelected aristocrats of the state.

[The Blaatschapen]

Roe v Wade might finally be gone in the United States. The only way to stop this is to pass a federal abortion law which the Democrats in Congress won't do. If the Supreme Court gets rid of Roe v Wade, abortion will be legal on a state by state basis. It will be on Republicans to pass a federal ban on abortion.

Time to hire a Dutch boat and sail out to the Gulf of Mexico.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_on_Waves

[Occult Pasadena]

Roe v Wade might finally be gone in the United States. The only way to stop this is to pass a federal abortion law which the Democrats in Congress won't do. If the Supreme Court gets rid of Roe v Wade, abortion will be legal on a state by state basis. It will be on Republicans to pass a federal ban on abortion.

Canada's about to get a big wave of tourists, overwhelmingly female in nature.

[Ifreann]

Roe v Wade might finally be gone in the United States. The only way to stop this is to pass a federal abortion law which the Democrats in Congress won't do. If the Supreme Court gets rid of Roe v Wade, abortion will be legal on a state by state basis. It will be on Republicans to pass a federal ban on abortion.

Time to hire a Dutch boat and sail out to the Gulf of Mexico.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_on_Waves

Low country heroes of the high seas.

[Neutraligon]

Roe v Wade might finally be gone in the United States. The only way to stop this is to pass a federal abortion law which the Democrats in Congress won't do. If the Supreme Court gets rid of Roe v Wade, abortion will be legal on a state by state basis. It will be on Republicans to pass a federal ban on abortion.

Canada's about to get a big wave of tourists, overwhelmingly female in nature.

No need, instead there will be certain states that get that big wave of the female nature. And of course there will be some nice busses paid for by charities to get them to those places. Oh...and of course back alley abortions and the typical deaths due to those abortions.

[Elwher]

So if the new SCOTUS precedent is that states decide, how does that disrupt the rule of law in California, Illinois, Maryland, or New York? Will Sacramento not be sure of its policies regarding abortion? Is the California Supreme Court not old enough to handle their own precedent? If California has issues with unequal interpretation of California law, I'd say that's a matter for Sacramento. And if the issue is interstate, there is also established precedent for that, both at the federal and state level. One precedent replacing another precedent, even if that precedent is Roe v Wade, isn't going to cause the kind of long term disruption you might be implying.

If courts cease to be impartial, me ignoring the lack of impartiality for politeness sake does not make them impartial. When a wall has been there for over two centuries, there are going to be dings...and rends...and patches...and paint overs. If you're going to be upset about a ding I make, but dismiss the ding your buddy made, is the wall more or less intact?

As I said the issue isn't Roe in it of itself destroying the rule of law. The problem is if people believe that the courts are not impartial, but politically motivated, they will stop using courts for conflict resolution. This can create a lot of problems.

To repeat, I don't think repealing Roe is going to immediately lead to this. I am however worried that Republicans mounting a decades long attempt to get Judges on SCOTUS to overrule Roe will cause the court to become more political, and cause people to view it as less impartial. It doesn't even mater if the court is becoming less impartial, even people thinking it is less impartial can cause problems.

As to the point about hypocrisy, please point to a precedent that has been around as long and is as impactful that the court then overturned that you don't see me complaining about. I've complained about the court in other cases where they ignored precedent or made what I feel are bad calls in the past. In general I believe that the US does need to do some house cleaning and update our constitution to incorporate how our nation has changed in 200 years and better understandings of political science, but that is not a discussion for this thread. Honestly at this point we have wandered rather far from abortion so I'm going to stop the conversation here. If you want to keep it up I'm active over in the American politics thread.

How about Brown v Board overturning Plessy v Ferguson?