The Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion.
The opinion is the most consequential Supreme Court decision in decades and will transform the landscape of women’s reproductive health in America.
Going forward, abortion rights will be determined by states, unless Congress acts. Already, nearly half of the states have or will pass laws that ban abortion while others have enacted strict measures regulating the procedure.
Read the opinion: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion. “Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”
The vote was 5-3-1. In a joint dissenting opinion, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan heavily criticized the majority, closing: “With sorrow — for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent.”
The opinion represents the culmination of a decades-long effort on the part of critics of abortion seeking to return more power to the states. It was made possible by a solid six-member conservative majority — including three of Donald Trump’s nominees.
At least 21 states have laws or constitutional amendments already in place that would make them certain to attempt to ban abortion as quickly as possible, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which favors abortion rights. And an additional four states are likely to ban abortions as soon as possible without federal protections.
Comment: Virginia has a rather liberal abortion law- doctor performed on demand in first trimester -doctor in hospital performed on demand in second trimester, [erformed in 3rd trimester if woman’s life is endangered. pl
This will ensure that this issue will be a major one in November and taking away a right from half the population and the biggest voting bloc will be decisive.
What right expressed in the constitution that the federal goverment, or state governments, can’t infringe is that? The issue goes back to the states. The left has had decades to pass state laws and even federal law to create what isn’t in the constitution. The biggest voting block? The pro-abortion left are going to turn out in even greater numbers to ensure Congress does what, create that law they didn’t create in the last 5 decades? Good luck with that. It sure beats AOC’s call for insurrection that she’s making in D.C. as I write this.
Lars; Not every woman in the country agrees to abortion on demand guaranteed by the federal govt. The issue is whether the constitution provides such a “right”, not that there should be such a right. I agree the socialists will make this an issue in November. The GOP can not prevent that as it was caused by the SC dockett. Will it be decisive? For what? If you mean it will enable the socialist to hold the House I remind you that not every woman agrees w/abortion on demand everywhere.
The most ardent (and numerous) pro-life advocates are women.
Well whatever is going to happen is now going to happen a lot faster. Dred Scott redux?
I think your comment re Dred Scott is right on. But however some may not like it, Justice Taney was right that the Missouri Compromise was legislation not constitutional amendment and thus could not trump the constitution. This will be the case if the congress tries by legislation to afford federal permission for universal abortion. The right to abortion simply is not in the constitution “penumbra” or not. Biden’s comments (if they are his) are disappointing. After Little Rock and Brown, Eisenhower was asked about the constitution and he was supposed to have replied the constitution is what the SC says it is. Contrast that to Biden’s comments that “this is not over”. How can this idea help governance?
Mr. Roche, Respectfully, I note you mention “Little Rock” then Brown [v. Board of Education]?
There’s some History Mr. Roche you may not be fully cognizant of which I will endeavor, if you’ll allow, to more fully present to the forefront (pointing out of course, these events and places occurred in the ‘greater area’ of the Ozark Mountains.
‘Leith’ I’m certain will “appreciate” this – Whether “others” I know not:
“Little Rock” didn’t happen in a vacuum.
That’s nice. Thank you. I was around then and remember the situation. What does “occurred in the Ozarks ” have to do with Brown? Didn’t the people of Little Rock Arkansas also live in America?
The future just got a heckuva lot closer.
John Roberts seems to be a ‘shape shifting’ pol under that black robe. But it is finally done and rightly so. All the floor boards that were lifted and searched under to find those ‘penumbras’ and ’eminations'(sp) and even ‘ruminations’ can be put back in place now. The ‘right’ never existed.
I’m not sure of the wisdom of a system of government that uses a court to decide all issues of major policy.
US Constitution provide lawful avenues for setting policy, and who may exercise that policy formation: (1) express grants of this power to the federal level; (2) all else to the states; and (3) via the express US constitutional amendment process.
Power to the people -their rights are protected by agreed and lawful process.
You may enjoy the fascinating series of lectures given a few years ago on exactly this topic by Jonathan Sumption (a former SCOTUK judge and all round very smart cookie). He bemoans the creep of law into politics, has much (not good) to say about international human rights law and was in favor of abortion being an issue for the States – not a popular opinion in the uber-progressive BBC who hosted the lectures. One of the lectures is US-specific, can’t remember which one. The series is available in podcasts too.
You’ve got it backwards. This decision
kicks the decision back to the elected officials.
So am I. But it is not the system the founders intended. SC review of legislation is not in the constitution but was finagled in by Marshall. I’m sure you know the history of Adams, Jefferson, Marshall, and Jay. Although these days he is not a lib. historian’s favorite, Jackson had it right when he said relative to the Cherokee vs the State of Georgia “the SC has made their decision, now let them enforce it.” In the absence of term limits our “legislatures” have b/c careers for prof. pols. not statesmen. Any issue that takes courage is avoided by the pros who gladly take the “perks” of office but leave real decisions to the court, the executive, the I.C. or Disney World. “A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it.” Franklin said. We can not. Period.
The court decided the issue with Roe. In this instance they corrected that grievous error and determined that this issue of policy is now back in the hands of the people and their representatives. The ghouls in California, New York, etc. will still be able to sacrifice as many of their unborn to Moloch as they please, because that is how they choose to live there.
Roe and Casey were eventually going to be struck down, or superseded. The “due process” arguments on which they are based assume a child at conception is entitled to no protection. But a child at birth is entitled to full protection. Somewhere in the middle the child transitions from no protection to full protection. The Casey decision in particular places the Court in the position of having to decide when that transition occurs. The majority in Dobbs is absolving the Court of responsibility for this.
The abortion Sturm und drang will continue unabated, even if the venues change. But no one is seriously going to be advocating for resurrecting Roe and Casey. Good bye and good riddance.
There is no right to a free house found in the US Constitution.
There is no right to free food found in the US Constitution.
There is no right to kill found in the US Constitution.
There is no right to an abortion (infanticide) found in the US Constitution.
Under the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, those rights are reserved to the states should they choose to enact those rights. Or granted by lawful amendment process to the US Constitution.
The prior courts erred when they claimed there was a “right to an abortion” within the language of the US Constitution. Happens.
Deap, a lot of people no longer bother with the 9th and 10th amendments as they were buried by the New Deal and Great Society it seems. Resurrection of those two amendments will be an interesting fight and will put Washington on high alert. Doing this will be an existential threat to the entire governing class.
You are 1000% correct. Where are the brave state gov’s who will stand up in support of the 10th? They are the key to the survival of the Republic.
Texas, Florida, most of the Southland, maybe Virginia etc.
Yes Pat and thanks. I too know who they are. I wish there were more. Funny, we keep rtng to 1860. We are again at a very deep cultural divide. I got lucky and never went to war. You did and I remember you asking correspondents on SST if they really understood the violence of war unleashed. The abortion issue illustrates this. States may not choose, federal gov’t must prevail, the 10th be damned, and if you disagree let’s take it to the street. The country needs a hero but who can be all things to everyone today?
What the Supreme Court has accomplished now is to make a lot of women second class citizens and I suspect a lot of them will not like it. It basically comes down to who should make decisions about pregnancy? Politicians or the individual? True conservatives would choose the latter.
But Lars, this judgement has empowered women such that they can and must make decisions about pregnancy – or more accurately the business that precedes it. If you want to rage against something, do so against the Guy responsible for this flaw. Any decision which places more onus on the individual to accept & own the consequences of their actions is a step in the right direction.
This decision is pro choice – the choice of the States, as was originally intended.
I am not sure a 13 year old girl who is pregnant by rape will appreciate having been forced to give birth. By your reasoning, women are not empowered to make decisions in the case of getting an abortion. You, and others, think that should be left to the states. There is more to this than just abortion. It is about personal freedom to make decisions about your body and not be forced to by the government.
You are making presumptions that don’t follow fact. Why do you presume states will impose a 100% ban with no exceptions on infanticide?
Plus, there are very, very few rape pregnancy cases. That is a false flag, just like deaths from back ally coat hanger abortions – never happened. Far greater are cases of infanticide on demand for “convenience”.
Ignorance about this decision, its legal underpinnings and specious arguments to the contrary are a national tragedy.
“pregnant by rape” That was one of the strawman arguements, including claims that abortion would be “rare”, which were used to justify acceptance abortion. If you are that fearful of a nationwide rape epidemic I suggest we fire the rape friendly DAs who keep letting perps go, build more prisons, and teach all “birthing people” how to use a firearm. Just imagine America today if Christine Beasley Ford had shot her “rapist” way back when.
“There is more to this than just abortion. It is about personal freedom to make decisions about your body and not be forced to by the government.”
You mean Vaccine mandates were unconstitutional acts under Roe, but now they are okay? Sure hope all those employers were paying attention.
Lars, there is certainly much more to this than the issue of abortion, just as in the last antebellum period when there was much more to it than the issue of slavery.
If Babak were here I expect he would again bring to our attention the critical distinction between license & liberty, which so many folk seem incapable of understanding.
Lars, your comments flow from an ignorance of American history. Please sit down. State gov’ts are gov’ts too. Some put big “hurdles” on abortion and others none. You know this but can’t accept state governance. You make a fine progressive, but for the Libertarian/Conservative mind all power to the fed is not progress. All power in one place frightens the L/C. History shows it should.
You d/n understand conservatism. Libertarians would choose women making all personal decisions not conservatives. I tend to be a libertarian. Trust me, you don’t want only libertarians running gov’t. A functioning society fails in that case. Two points; penumbra/snerumba there is no right given in the constitution for abortion and you don’t get to make them up. The founders gave you an amendment process. I use it, not violence. If you get away with violence why can’t someone else over something else? Second if you don’t like what your state says travel to another. You have 50 choices. But this isn’t about choice is it. It is about violence to get what you want and fluk those who disagree. That is the mantra of the totalitarian left.
It won’t be an issue in Nov. The economy will be so wrecked by then all people will care about are prices. The real issue however will be when it crashes and the printing money tactic is no longer an option. Do that and it will get worse. I would not be shocked at all if he tried to nationalize oil. Once that happens run for your lives.
Let us see whether any of the pro-life conservatives will ban aid to Israel since that nation permits abortion. Alternatively, I wonder if the Taliban could make common cause with the Republican Party, using Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion as a common moral platform…
Nah. There was never any constitutional basis for Roe. What is the Taliban’s version of the USCT, their version of sharia?
just imagine any of the pro-choice democrats supporting defending Poland as a NATO member since Poland outlaws abortion.
I see Dear Leader Justin of the Land of the Maple Leaf has declared that the US Supreme Court decision is an “attack on everyone’s rights”. I wonder what kind of interference in US elections his government has planned for this fall?
I wonder if Canada would have been better off if Arnold and Montgomery had succeeded in Dec. ’75. Then again, can the US be far b/h the totalitarian impulse of today’s “progressive” Canada? From where did this willingness to accept the gov’t boot come? I always thought Canadians were just like us “ceptin” colder. I guess I was wrong.
The bottom line is that those who can afford an abortion will get one while those who can’t will either have the child or end up with an “illegal” abortion. Case in point. In the latter 60’s in SD a white college student attending a religious affiliated college ended up pregnant from a “date rape”. As her parents had money, she and her mother flew to England to have an abortion. Something also many Irish did until they overturned their abortion law several years ago. Also in conservative SD in that era numerous D&C operations were performed that in reality were abortions. Women will continue to do what they feel is necessary.