Supreme Court Passes Up a Chance to Reconsider Roe

[ancianita]

Source: Mother Jones

Tuesday, the court declined to hear the Indiana case. The per curiam opinion explaining the court's reasoning for the denial didn't reveal the vote breakdown, but the decision was supported by at least one of the court's most conservative members: Clarence Thomas.

Tuesday's decision in favor of Planned Parenthood wasn't rooted in any sort of desire to preserve abortion rights, but rather in procedural issues.

Both Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote separately to say they would have blocked the fetal remains law. "This case implicates 'the right of [a] woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State,'" Ginsburg wrote, arguing that Indiana's petition should have been denied completely.

Indiana has one more controversial abortion case still pending before the court, involving a state law that would require women to undergo an ultrasound at least 18 hours before receiving an abortion. The 7th Circuit held that the law created an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion, without any "known benefits," and blocked its implementation. Indiana appealed to the Supreme Court, which will consider the petition again on Thursday.

Read more: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/05/supreme-court-passes-up-on-a-chance-to-reconsider-roe/?fbclid=IwAR2yCX7UrEsjsEC_gkfhGwxyOfNV9caCOKaxtpXHIMn_fvHm5qKlGlPQPWg

---

A cynical take is that SCOTUS realizes that a total reversal of Roe at this point would be a disaster for the GOP, and that the conservative wing of the court serves the GOP more than it serves the Constitution.

A Roe reversal at this point would not only deprive the GOP of one of their two favorite wedge and fundraising issues before the 2020 election (the other one being guns)

A more constitutional take is that, since 70% of Americans support Roe, it would create a nightmarish backlash, propelling the abortion issue toward the top of the list of issues influencing people's votes.

Until SCOTUS shows a pattern of refusing to hear state-generated cases, it can't yet be clear to half the public that Roe is, indeed, settled.

Long term, if half the country doesn't stay vigilant, SCOTUS could well be content to chip away at Roe a little at a time, while states unduly burden women legally to the point where a Roe reversal would scarcely be noticed.

[Thomas Hurt]

1. The Imams on the SCOTUS are just chipping away...

to the end goal of turning abortion related policy over to the states......and then ban it outright.

[ancianita]

3. Roe has withstood significant case tests.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services 1989

Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1993

Activities of Norma McCorvey 2005

Who was a party to the original litigation, and sought to reopen the case in U.S. District Court in Texas to have Roe v. Wade overturned. However, the Fifth Circuit decided that her case was moot, in McCorvey v. Hill.

Stenberg v. Carhart 2000

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade#Role_in_subsequent_decisions_and_politics

[Thomas Hurt]

6. Keep your fingers crossed, but I don't trust the christofascists on the court to...

toss precedent out and impose their theocratic ideals.

[StevieM]

11. Planned Parenthood v Casey was in 1992.

You wrote 1993.

Also, Casey scaled back Roe vs. Wade. It laid the groundwork for the laws that are being passed around the country that are dramatically reducing access to abortion.

Finally, the Supreme Court has a right-wing majority that in the past was not there. This new court will be much more willing to overturn Roe.

[StevieM]

16. LOL, I actually just repeated the same mistake that I pointed out.

I was trying say that Casey was in 1992, not 1993. But I accidentally wrote that it was in 1993 and that you wrote 1992. I don't know where my head was.

I remember when Casey was issued. Both sides were upset. Republicans were furious that 3 Reagan/Bush Sr. appointments had voted to uphold Roe. And many Democrats were concerned that the court was scaling back Roe vs. Wade. Lee Hamilton, a Representative from Indiana, was one of the finalists for Bill Clinton's choice as vice-president. He said that he was OK with the ruling. At that point Clinton seemed to move away from him and towards Al Gore.

[ancianita]

17. Thanks. Glad we got that straight.

[ArizonaLib]

4. Agree - this is why states don't legislate outright bans.

The GOP are experts at chipping away rights, funding and protections. They celebrate at every successful 'chip', and these are not accidents.

[Bengus81]

7. Yup....the ACA and IF Dems hadn't taken the House SS and Medicare would be on the block...

These are heartless fuckers who want to take laws and people back to the 20's and work for peanuts until you drop dead.

[DownriverDem]

10. If it goes to the states

then it will be legal in those states.

[ArizonaLib]

2. Yes, RBG in her dissent addressed this law as a potential undue burden

that a patient might find these post procedure requirements as burdens too costly to bear, and therefore decide not to undergo any part of the medical procedure.

[Iliyah]

5. The 5 justices are biding their time.

Probably wait until after the 2020 elections.

[StevieM]

12. Exactly. I expect that in November 2020 they will agree to hear a case.

The will hear it in March 2021. And Roe vs. Wade will be overturned in June 2021. This will happen regardless of who wins the next election.

The only way to save Roe is to make alterations to the Court.

[dalton99a]

8. It will happen. Which is why Democrats must expand the court

when they retake Washington

[BigmanPigman]

20. And/or set term limits, no more lifetime appointments

[Bengus81]

9. And always remember,this is from the " Keep Guberment out of your life" crowd...

And the usual BS about wanting smaller Guberment.

[Liberty Belle]

14. Remember, if Trump is reelected he may appoint replacements for Ginsberg or other aging liberals

should an opening occur. So even if, say, Roberts or another conservative keeps Roe v Wade from being overturned right now, that could change in a heartbeat if new Trump appointees get in there.

It is also crucial for Dems to retake the Senate, since a Republican controlled Senate could block a future Dem president from seating any new justices just as they blocked Obama from seating Merrick. They are without scruples.

[ancianita]

15. NOT TODAY! is my motto! My point here is that it's important news. Roe's still on the books, y'all.

I'm going to be cheerful in spite of all the cynicism here. It's not time to worry yet!

[John Fante]

18. Just as I thought, the SCOTUS won't overturn Roe.

It would be political suicide for the GOP.

[DeminPennswoods]

19. Agree with this

IMO, if SCOTUS did overturn Roe, it would cause enough backlash that Congress would legislate legal abortion.

This is likely a no win for the court, too. If they overturn, Dems and pro-choice'ers will take it out at the 2020 election and beyond. If they uphold, that might cause the GOP evangelical base to stay home, satisfied with their "victory".