Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

So people in red states who want to murder their babies can just cross a state line to commit infanticide.

Or is that too much bother?

a reply to: IAMTAT

Not necessarily. The Texas law for example, allows you to sue anyone that helps a person get an abortion out-of-state.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: IAMTAT

Not necessarily. The Texas law for example, allows you to sue anyone that helps a person get an abortion out-of-state.

Define "helps" in this instance, please.
Does this mean driving an expectant mother across a state line to abort her baby?

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: IAMTAT

Not necessarily. The Texas law for example, allows you to sue anyone that helps a person get an abortion out-of-state.

Define "helps" in this instance, please.
Does this mean driving an expectant mother across a state line to abort her baby?

Define "help"? Does it matter what any one of us thinks "help" means? Once one is accused it's up to a judge to decide what "help" is. A judge could decide giving a pregnant woman a phone number is "help".

Sounds like an accomplice to me.

a reply to: IAMTAT

So why was this leaked? Has any other decision in history been LEAKED from the supreme court?

originally posted by: panoz77
So why was this leaked? Has any other decision in history been LEAKED from the supreme court?

It would be interesting if it turns out to be the new SC justice.
She'll need to be removed.

a reply to: panoz77

While the Supreme Court is generally pretty tight lipped, there have certainly been leaks over the years. The most famous example is probably the case of Ashton Embry, a clerk for Justice McKenna, who that would leak information about decisions to Wall Street traders.

a reply to: IAMTAT

She hasn't even taken a seat on the bench yet. Breyer isn't expected to officially retire until this summer. At which point Jackson will step in and take his seat.

Now the murderers and hate mongers will out themselves more than ever !! ☠️

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: IAMTAT

She hasn't even taken a seat on the bench yet. Breyer isn't expected to officially retire until this summer. At which point Jackson will step in and take his seat.

She hasn't been briefed on all draft opinions yet?
This draft was written back in Feb.

The walls are rising around the SCOTUS building 🦇

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Perhaps she has inside information. 💎

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Perhaps she has inside information. 💎

She's been confirmed. She'd already have full access to draft opinions to prepare herself for taking the bench.

a reply to: Guyfriday

all Congress has to do is sit down and make a bill that legalizes abortions, get it through the House and Senate and have Biden sign off on it.

Not according to the wording of the presumed decision (note that's a big .pdf). There's that pesky 10th Amendment... since the Supreme Court rules that abortion is not a right specified in the Constitution, it falls to the states.

Justice Alito was pretty thorough writing this one up. He didn't just overturn Roe v. Wade; he absolutely refuted the very idea that the Federal government has any authority concerning abortion. Based on this decision, the only way to Federally outlaw abortion at this point would be to amend the Constitution.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Not according to the wording of the presumed decision (note that's a big .pdf). There's that pesky 10th Amendment... since the Supreme Court rules that abortion is not a right specified in the Constitution, it falls to the states.

It's important to remember that this document was penned in February, that is is a first draft that one can only assume was authored to deliberately present and extreme hard line ruling, and that it was penned that way in order for all the justices to thoughtfully respond with legal arguments and precedents against and/or for each and every position, resulting hopefully in a more homogenized ruling.

I personally won't comment on the content of the document until the actual SCOTUS ruling is announced.

Lets see how the rabid left does now. 10-1 odds they burn, loot and murder all in the name of profitable baby parts. If you think Jan 6th was an insurrection, wait until the loons get a hold of Washington!

a reply to: Degradation33

That's actually exactly what this bill says. California gets to make that decision; the Federal government does not.

It was stated several times on the first pages: this decision does not criminalize abortion! Abortion is still legal no matter if Roe v. Wade is struck down or not! All this decision would do is make it also legal for states to outlaw abortion; they can still keep it legal if they want to.

There's a very good reason why states have such authority instead of the Federal government: I have some say-so in what happens in Alabama. It's not hard to shift an election for a state representative or senator; all the electorate lives close to me. But affecting a Federal election? That's a pretty tall order for the vast majority of the country. One vote among millions, instead of one vote among a few thousand.

California is complaining not about this decision criminalizing abortion in California; it does not, can not do that. California is complaining that they don't get to make laws for the rest of the country. They don't get to do that; it's the United States of America, not the United States of California.

TheRedneck

a reply to: frogs453

It's against the law for women to rape also.

In what reality can a woman rape someone with their sexual organs? What color is the sky there? Do they have unicorn zoos or let them run wild and free?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's a fair point, but the wording (have you actually took time to read the decision?) is pretty specific on why Roe v. Wade should be struck down. We cannot debate the actual decision, since it hasn't come down yet; we can only debate this draft.

TheRedneck