[image_credit]REUTERS/Hannah McKay[/image_credit][image_caption]A protestor holding a sign outside the U.S. Supreme Court building.[/image_caption]
As you know, under Roe, the court ruled that pregnancies could be broken into thirds, with an unlimited first trimester right of a pregnant woman to get an abortion, a middle trimester in which states could impose some regulations but not ban abortions, and a third trimester in which states could ban all abortions except those necessary to save the life of the mother.
I don’t think there’s much in the Constitution to guide such a ruling. But it has mostly held up since 1973, while being constantly contested, mostly by groups calling themselves “pro life” who want to ban abortions or severely limit their availability, and “pro choice” groups advocating for as much discretion as possible for a woman to opt for an abortion.
As you also know, the issue has been deeply, deeply politicized and partisanized. So I pass along today a fresh Washington Post-ABC poll that reflects on the partisan breakdown of those views, and that surprised me only by how much more overwhelmingly Roe is supported by Democrats than it is opposed by Republicans, and by how much independent respondents agree with Democrats.
Here’s that breakdown:
Among Democrats, by 82-11 percent, the view is that Roe should be upheld, with seven percent expressing no opinion.
Among Republicans, but by just 45-42, it should be overturned, with 13 percent expressing no opinion.
And among independents, it was a solid 58-28 in favor of upholding Roe (with 14 percent “no opinion”).
Moosh them all together, among all adults, by 60-27 percent (with 12 percent undecided) U.S. adults told the pollsters that the Roe trimester plan should be upheld by the Supreme Court.
Obviously, more political, legal and moral analysis can (and will) be done. But if these poll numbers are correct, a decision to further restrict abortion would be overwhelmingly unpopular, by more than two-to-one.
Obviously, the Supreme Court is not supposed to be influenced by opinion polls. Possibly, the anti-Roe crowd feels more strongly against Roe than the pro-Roe crowd feels in favor of the status quo. Other analysis points might apply. But if these numbers are correct, they are a powerful reminder that the long-sought-by-pro-lifers Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe would be hugely unpopular and likely have big partisan political effects.
(And that’s even beginning to explore the real life effects it would have on pregnant women.)
The full Washington Post piece on the Post-ABC poll can be accessed here.
Once again, thanks to Ruth Bader Ginsberg for putting her own ego before the rights of millions of women.
Her egotism is part of what she is.
I’d suggest that you examine her career as a whole and decide if you would have been better off without her.
If you examine her career as a whole, few people have done more to hurt women’s rights, voting rights, the environment, etc., than Ginsberg. Her legacy will continue to get worse as her chosen successor, Amy Coney Barrett, takes votes instead of the liberal, likely near indentically voting successor that should have taken her place 7 years ago.
I did that, right here in MinnPost:
https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2020/09/one-and-a-half-cheers-for-ruth-bader-ginsburg/
I’ll say now what I said then – the idea that same sex marriage created a conservative backlash is nonsense. Its not even a controversial issue anymore.
Ginsberg was fine as a justice. She just didnt know when to quit and sold out everything she believed in.
It was one of several marginal issues that tipped a close electoral vote count in 2016, still results in a closely divided Congress, and continues to energize the right.
Pure nonsense. Support for same sex marriage in 2016 was over 60 percent.
Here is a clue, altho not definitive:
“in your vote, were supreme court appointments:
… the most important factor
[Clinton voters] 41% [Trump voters] 56%”
https://www.cnn.com/election/2016/results/exit-polls
Perhaps you can also add some light rather than heat? Looking forward to it.
The Supreme Court was important, but not the gay marriage decision. Again, support for that decision was above 60 percent in 2016, more than a lot of issues supported by the candidates. Trump didn’t make much of an issue of it because knew it was popular, and he tried to court LGBT votes.
Your argument has no basis in reality.
Stephen Breyer is following in her footsteps. Because the institution.
Same out of control ego.
Same ad hominem.
Nothing ad hominem about it. Ginsberg and Breyer had/have an opportunity to ensure that their beliefs will continue on the Supreme Court for decades to come, but insisted/insist on keeping their geriatric selves on the court instead. Putting the rights of millions at risk because they deem themselves too important.
I can’t think of bigger examples of out of control egos. Pure selfishness.
You make my point.
I’m glad we can agree that RBGs ego will cost this country dearly. Hopefully its not too late for Breyer.
Well lets give this a little thought, seems that lots of folks think it is a women’s duty to bear children, OK than it is a mans duty to support those children, so for those men that do not support their children suggest we remove their right to make them. Seems fair enough? Should get lots of “R” support!
The Supreme Court isn’t /supposed/ to be influenced by a lot of things. But here we are.
If anything, Roe should be overturned because it was law created from whole cloth by the Court. That’s not their job.
Let SCOTUS overturn it and then let the state legislatures write laws that determine how abortions should be handled in this society within that state. Federal laws as a practice are a bad idea because it leaves the American citizen no options who disagree with that law. I have relatives who have moved from state to state because they disagree with tax law, for example.
For constitutional nerds, that would be the constitutionally consistent thing to do.
And the rest of us obey the law and pay our taxes — and support the freeloaders.
Not from whole cloth, but from a reading of precedent. Roe follows logically from Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird.
No, it was a leap from those precedents that left Evel Knievel looking like a hopscotch player.
Analytically speaking, you are totally incorrect.
If Roe has no firm constitutional basis, then neither does Griswold. Best just to admit that a state can regulate all contraception as well. That’s the true “conservative” position, if that’s what you seek.
My further comment below, hoping for a _legislated_ pro-choice outcome, hardly identifies me as a conservative. I also would agree with you on a strong zone of privacy, which to me is an indispensable component of liberty. Thus laws prohibiting contraception and (for example) same-sex relationships among adults have no public interest weighing in favor of prohibition, and rightly fail any constitutional test. But the developing personhood of a fetus calls for a balancing test and the judicially fashioned clever compromise, as Mr. Black would have it, has satisfied virtually no one and completely lacks the minimal textual support that would justify — in the context of 1973 — the nullification of virtually every abortion law in the nation. Unless the pregnancy involves a direct threat to life, including longterm medical consequences, or resulted from a deprivation of liberty, the Constitution should not be invoked; the appeal instead should be to the compassion and (I hope) common sense of our fellow citizens.
I hadn’t meant to misidentify you as a conservative, but the goal of negating the constitutional right and throwing the abortion issue back to the states for its “regulation” is the official “conservative” position.
You have explained the attempted distinction between Roe and Griswold very clearly, but I find it totally unpersuasive; substantive due process is substantive due process. And as soon as you acknowledge that the abortion context “calls for a balancing test” you have given the game away and implicitly conceded the correctness of Roe (and Casey, for that matter). Obviously the lack of a federal constitutional right means abortion could be banned, should the “compassionate” citizens of Mississippi (and the rest of the Neo-Confederacy) so desire. Which you admit below is precisely what they would do.
Your solution to this is to glibly invoke the right to travel, as though this is a cost-free answer, open equally to all women. Sorry to say, but this hardly demonstrates either compassion or an understanding of lack of time, transportation or low wages (not to say poverty). Lengthy interstate travel is not an “answer” to many citizens, and their status must be recognized as well.
And what exactly is gained by such a patchwork “solution”, other than some (small) satisfaction for the Evangelical majority of some states in the Neo-Confederacy? The Godless Scourge of abortion would still exist, and reversing Roe would only mean such worthies would start taking the issue to the Congress for a national ban. If you doubt this, you do not understand the “pro-life” movement. They cannot accept the existence of the abortion sin anywhere; that’s their uncompromising morality, and they equate their noble cause to abolition, of all things.
You place great emphasis on the idea that the result in Roe “has satisfied virtually no one”. Public opinion is hardly a basis for concluding a judicial opinion is wrong. And the observation is incorrect in any event, since the main factoid of the article is that a strong majority of citizens nationwide ARE (and have always been) satisfied that abortion should be a constitutional right. National majorities (and substantial minorities in Red States) see Roe as correctly decided; but the pro-lifers obstinately refuse to acknowledge that fact. I could name a dozen cases that would engender much more public disapproval than Roe, if the public knew anything about them!
The idea of compromise is precisely what the pro-lifers reject most strongly. It’s their way or the (literal) highway, as you have essentially admitted. But thanks for your observations, and no offense intended.
I will leave you the privilege of the (voluminous) last word(s) and move on …
We’ll send the families of dead and imprisoned women to your door for support then. After all, conservatives are all about charity, I’ve been told.
“Federal laws as a practice are a bad idea…”
Well, so much for the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause…
I had thought that today’s “conservatives” wanted government to return to the 19th Century era of Dredd Scott and the Gilded Age. Little did I know they wanted a return to the 18th Century Articles of Confederation!
“But if these poll numbers are correct, a decision to further restrict abortion would be overwhelmingly unpopular, by more than two-to-one.” E.B.
This question was not asked and this conclusion cannot be supported.
Are you saying further restrictions on abortion would be popular, or supported by a majority?
The average American has not known a time when abortion was illegal. I doubt there is particularly broad support forgoing back to the pre-Roe days.
I am saying basic restrictions on abortion can be governed by States (parental consent, etc.)
Are you saying restrictions can only be passed on by 9 unelected justices rather than State legislatures?
Having the SCOTUS pass along standard, boiler plate restrictions on every State is an attack on our democracy.
That is not what you were saying, but I will play along.
“[B]asic restrictions on abortion” are subject to limitations that do not allow the underlying right to be taken away. The “nine unelected justices,” whose power seems to be an issue only when it goes against your beliefs, are charged with making sure that the “basic restrictions” do not run afoul of the Constitution.
“Having the SCOTUS pass along standard, boiler plate restrictions on every State is an attack on our democracy.”
I take it, then, that you were not okay with the recent decisions striking down gun control law that were put in place by democratically-elected legislative bodies?
How very literal minded. It’s a reasonable logical inference from the answer to the question asked.
The veracity of the headline will soon be demonstrated or rebutted. When (not if) the black robed dictators give the issue back to the electorate (and hopefully recheck the text of the Constitution in the process), the majorities will have the opportunity to make their wishes known.
In a best case scenario, we can perhaps follow the paths of Ireland and the U.K. in using our democratic legislative processes to enact reasonable choice options; and then, after a long half-century, be able to consider the issue to be settled.
It’s not going to happen that way. Abortion is too important as a wedge issue for the anti-abortion crowd to give it up. The religious right seized on it as a mobilizing force once they realized that “segregation forever!” wasn’t going to work any more, and it’s been paying off for them ever since.
Now that we have both registered our predictions, let’s compare notes in a couple of years. I see an overwhelming majority of us living in states with liberalized abortion laws, and the rest of us having unrestricted travel rights to those states – and a huge consensus saying, in effect, “enough of this, already!”
Sorry, but the importance of the wedge issue is too great. There is little room for dialogue here.
As I said, let’s make a date to review our predictions.
Too much is being made of whether Roe (and Casey) are formally overruled by the Court’s “conservative” cabal. A case can be kept “alive”, yet be a dead letter because no longer actually followed by the courts.
As things stand right now, the right to manage one’s pregnancy exists in theory under Roe/Casey, but not in practice across large swaths of the nation. This is because the “conservative” majority on the Supreme Court has largely allowed most state restrictions on abortion to stand. As a result of the latest Red State tactic of imposing needless restrictions on abortion providers, for example, it is difficult to find a clinic across much of the Bible Belt, so only the wives and daughters of the wealthy white Evangelicals can jet off for their clandestine abortion in some (non-Medieval) Blue city.
So even if the democratically-illegitimate Trump majority on the Court does not formally overrule Roe/Casey with the looming Mississippi case, it could (absurdly) rule that the state’s 16 week ban is not an “undue burden” on the right (just like having one clinic in all of Texas is not an “undue burden”). Of course, that half measure would still anger the Evangelicals, who in their black/white view of morality demand nothing less than that the hated Roe precedent be struck from the books.
But the Trumpian “conservatives” are well aware how unpopular directly overruling Roe would be (see every poll ever taken) and may conclude that discretion is the better part of valor here. What is important is for everyone (media especially!) to understand that if this draconian MS law is upheld, Roe/Casey will have ceased to exist as meaningful precedents and that Red America will basically be able to restrict abortion to whatever degree its “conservative” majorities demand.
Childbearing age ladies, get out of Red America, now!
This topic, as usual, has devolved into tribal warfare and war chants.
Again with the “tribes”? Women are being classified as second class citizens with no privacy rights or personal autonomy. That’s not a tribal conflict it’s a civil rights crises. Anyone who wants to ignore that crises is free to do so, but be honest about it… don’t try to pretend it’s a illegitimate struggle among equally irrational people. And don’t pretend that some “tribe” rather than oppressive patriarchs are trying to subjugate women.
So we’re going to turn a decades long conservative attack on women’s rights into an attack on RBG? OK then.
All I’ll say is that the only reason this is remained a powerful issue for Republicans despite lack of public support has been the fact that Democrats who supposed to defend abortion rights failed. Instead of promoting abortion rights, they sat behind Roe as if it was impregnable wall that would never be breached. Democrats compromised and dialoged, and restricted, and made sure everyone knew that they themselves didn’t believe in abortion but supported “choice”.
Instead of putting privacy and the agenda of making women second class citizens the center of a civil/women’s right agenda, they joined the “morality” narrative pretends forcing women to have babies might be a reasonable thing to do. Instead of taking the initiative they’ve been on defense ever since Roe was handed down, and they’ve ignored ongoing Republican program to stack the courts… which was never a secret of any kind. So here we are.
Its just pointing out that RBG sacrificed abortion rights to feed her own ago. You think the Democrats let us down? All RBG had to do is retire when she was 80 and had cancer.
Sure Pat, RBG single handedly crushed abortion rights. “Moderate” Democrat accommodations and willingness to concede increased restrictions for decades had nothing to do with it. Biden’s enthusiastic support for “originalists” like Scalia who was never shy about his desire to overturn Roe plays no role in promoting neoliberal anti-feminism. With Democrats at the helm of abortion rights women have been losing access steadily since the early 90’s. As recently as 2015 HRC was willing to negotiate even more abortion restrictions.
Democrats have been in control of congress and the White House at least twice in the last couple decades… yet it never occurred them to pass actual legislation establishing abortion rights for women. Instead of reinforcing Roe with legislation, they hid behind it rather cowardly… and now we’ll pay the price for that “moderation”.
Good, we agree. RBG single handedly crushed abortion rights.
As I read the comments above, I found myself wondering why – with the exception of Rachel Kahler – all the comments are from males…
I’ve always found it revealing that the groups most strenuously opposed to abortion are dominated by males.
All males should be forced to recuse themselves from any abortion related decision: personal to political.
A program of mandatory vasectomies for the male counterpart of an unwanted pregnancy would quickly produce:
“My body, my decision” From these same folks…
Today’s ray of hope:
The next few years of the Robert’s court will continually disappoint and anger most conservatives who think justices are like US Representatives who can be whipped to follow the party line every time.
Ray of hope indeed.
If Roe is overturned the Republicans will never elect another president. Careful what you wish for.
Packing the court with conservative justices is a way to make sure that if another 2000 Gore v bush comes up the Supreme Court can ensure that we have minority rule by a bunch of savage atavistic Republicans. Think Donald Trump. After the stench of January 6 is gone, do you really think these justices will hesitate to use the court in a political fashion to support minority rule by a bunch of plutocrats? These guys are complete tools of the conservative miss information networks.