DiscussMormonism.com

Xenophon wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 5:05 pm

I'm curious what even is the political calculus behind the leak, if there even was any.

If it was leaked by those disagreeing with the overturn I think they've made matters worse. I doubt you convince the majority to flip with any sort of public backlash. And worse, if the majority had already flipped and the court actually wasn't going to overturn you've now sullied that flip and setup a fairly easy argument that the only reason the court caved was because of public pressure. Accelerating the outrage timeline just doesn't make much sense to me.

I appreciate your input as well Res, especially about needing to codify the conduct in a much more official capacity.

Who knows. May Ukraine hacked his laptop.

That draft couldn't have touched the hands of more 5 people. Probably only Justice Alito himself and his clerk. So whoever did decide to leak that is cruising for a bruising, career wise.

I see a lot of people claiming on the interwebs that abortion is now '"illegal nationwide." No, they will be ruling that the Constitution doesn't grant a federal right to an abortion and the issue will be kicked back to the states to decide. I could be very wrong but I am not too sure this will heavily affect the day to day of people seeking abortions. People living in deep red states likely already have to travel to a neighboring state where it is legal to get an abortion considering most red states have laws that make it near impossible already.

It does feel very strange though to see Roe overturned in my lifetime.

Kukulkan wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 7:55 pm

That draft couldn't have touched the hands of more 5 people. Probably only Justice Alito himself and his clerk. So whoever did decide to leak that is cruising for a bruising, career wise.

I see a lot of people claiming on the interwebs that abortion is now '"illegal nationwide." No, they will be ruling that the Constitution doesn't grant a federal right to an abortion and the issue will be kicked back to the states to decide. I could be very wrong but I am not too sure this will heavily affect the day to day of people seeking abortions. People living in deep red states likely already have to travel to a neighboring state where it is legal to get an abortion considering most red states have laws that make it near impossible already.

It does feel very strange though to see Roe overturned in my lifetime.

A number of states have enacted "trigger laws" that go into effect only if Roe and Casey are overturned. I think it's around a dozen.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 9:14 pm

A number of states have enacted "trigger laws" that go into effect only if Roe and Casey are overturned. I think it's around a dozen.

13 is the actual count with another 5 still having abortion bans on the books from pre-Roe (actually 9 but 4 of those are in the trigger law group too) and 4 have "heartbeat" bans that are blocked but who knows if that holds in a post-Roe world.

That puts the effective ban count as potentially as high as 21 states. And this isn't just Deep South stuff either. The Dakotas, Utah, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio are in that list of 21.

Xenophon wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 9:34 pm

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 9:14 pm

A number of states have enacted "trigger laws" that go into effect only if Roe and Casey are overturned. I think it's around a dozen.

13 is the actual count with another 5 still having abortion bans on the books from pre-Roe (actually 9 but 4 of those are in the trigger law group too) and 4 have "heartbeat" bans that are blocked but who knows if that holds in a post-Roe world.

That puts the effective ban count as potentially as high as 21 states. And this isn't just Deep South stuff either. The Dakotas, Utah, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio are in that list of 21.

Anything that has been blocked based on the Constitutional right found in Roe will be "unblocked." Unless there were other legal grounds for preventing the law from being enforced (such as a state constitutional ground or statute), whichever court has jurisdiction of the case at the time will very like simply dismiss it.

Is it possible that this was leaked by a right-wing radical Justice (or his spouse ) in order to keep the discussion locked in this place, in other words, using the publicity of this version to keep others from changing positions or tweaking this further?

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 10:04 pm

Is it possible that this was leaked by a right-wing radical Justice (or his spouse ) in order to keep the discussion locked in this place, in other words, using the publicity of this version to keep others from changing positions or tweaking this further?

Yes and if that is the case, I think it's dangerous.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 9:14 pm

A number of states have enacted "trigger laws" that go into effect only if Roe and Casey are overturned. I think it's around a dozen.

Yeah, from my understanding these states already have super restrictive abortion laws on the books so people in these states seeking abortions probably are going to more liberal states to receive them. I don't Overturning Roe is just kind of making everything official.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... s-by-state

This data is from 2017 but I think it represents my point fairly well. If you look at the states that have these trigger laws, across the board they all seem to have a fairly low rate of abortion already. For example, a woman in Idaho or Wyoming who is seeking an abortion is probably just going to jump state lines into Nevada or Oregon and get their abortion without jumping through all the hoops that those states have set up.

Roe is a obviously controversial case both in the public and legal sector. The precedent it sat on in my opinion was already somewhat questionable and many have called it judicial activism. Again, I think this highlights the absolute need to codify issues like this in law. We have seen the consequences of not doing so.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 10:04 pm

Is it possible that this was leaked by a right-wing radical Justice (or his spouse ) in order to keep the discussion locked in this place, in other words, using the publicity of this version to keep others from changing positions or tweaking this further?

That is a very interesting theory. I want to imagine this wasn't done by an actual Justice but rather a zealous clerk, but with how things have been recently, anything is on the table.

Kukulkan wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 10:06 pm

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Tue May 03, 2022 9:14 pm

A number of states have enacted "trigger laws" that go into effect only if Roe and Casey are overturned. I think it's around a dozen.

Yeah, from my understanding these states already have super restrictive abortion laws on the books so people in these states seeking abortions probably are going to more liberal states to receive them. I don't Overturning Roe is just kind of making everything official.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... s-by-state

This data is from 2017 but I think it represents my point fairly well. If you look at the states that have these trigger laws, across the board they all seem to have a fairly low rate of abortion already. For example, a woman in Idaho or Wyoming who is seeking an abortion is probably just going to jump state lines into Nevada or Oregon and get their abortion without jumping through all the hoops that those states have set up.

Roe is a obviously controversial case both in the public and legal sector. The precedent it sat on in my opinion was already somewhat questionable and many have called it judicial activism. Again, I think this highlights the absolute need to codify issues like this in law. We have seen the consequences of not doing so.

The newest type of bills are crafted to prevent women from leaving the state to get an abortion. Also, some subject a woman who miscarries to a criminal investigation that could result in jail time. Some literally require a doctor to let the mother die rather than save her life by removing the fetus. Some require doctors to transplant an ectopic pregnancy even through its impossible, and puts the mother's life at risk. So, it's not just a matter of popping over border for a quick D&C. A significant number of women, mostly poor and black, will die because of the handcuffs these laws put on doctors and nurses.

I understand your point about the constitutional basis of Roe. But do you really believe that the government can throw you in jail for using birth control? Or for marrying outside your race? Because all of these court decisions flow from exactly the same basis: a basic sphere of freedom into which the government cannot intrude. And, because an individual's rights aren't limited to those named in the Constitution (actually, it's just the opposite), the fact that the bill of rights doesn't specifically include the right of a woman to decide whether to give birth doesn't mean she shouldn't have that right.

I live in a free state and not a handmaiden state, so I'm not directly affected. But if the government has the power to force women to give birth, how can anyone argue with a straight face that there is any area of private or personal behavior that the government cannot control? All these parents that think they have the right to raise their children as they choose? Or control what is taught by the state in schools? Or tell them what they have to wear on their faces? Rejecting the precedent on which Roe is based permits the government to reach into their private family life and do whatever they want. Striking down Roe would be the biggest threat to Americans' individual liberty in a long time.