Jump to content

Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows


HipKat
 Share

Recommended Posts

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” he writes in the document, labeled as the “Opinion of the Court.” “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito circulated inside the court and obtained by POLITICO.

The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito writes.

Deliberations on controversial cases have in the past been fluid. Justices can and sometimes do change their votes as draft opinions circulate and major decisions can be subject to multiple drafts and vote-trading, sometimes until just days before a decision is unveiled. The court’s holding will not be final until it is published, likely in the next two months.

The immediate impact of the ruling as drafted in February would be to end a half-century guarantee of federal constitutional protection of abortion rights and allow each state to decide whether to restrict or ban abortion. It’s unclear if there have been subsequent changes to the draft.

No draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending. The unprecedented revelation is bound to intensify the debate over what was already the most controversial case on the docket this term.

The draft opinion offers an extraordinary window into the justices’ deliberations in one of the most consequential cases before the court in the last five decades. Some court-watchers predicted that the conservative majority would slice away at abortion rights without flatly overturning a 49-year-old precedent. The draft shows that the court is looking to reject Roe’s logic and legal protections.

Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. 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.”

Justice Samuel Alito in an initial draft majority opinion

A person familiar with the court’s deliberations said that four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.

The three Democratic-appointed justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – are working on one or more dissents, according to the person. How Chief Justice John Roberts will ultimately vote, and whether he will join an already written opinion or draft his own, is unclear.

The document, labeled as a first draft of the majority opinion, includes a notation that it was circulated among the justices on Feb. 10. If the Alito draft is adopted, it would rule in favor of Mississippi in the closely watched case over that state’s attempt to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

A Supreme Court spokesperson declined to comment or make another representative of the court available to answer questions about the draft document.

POLITICO received a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the court’s proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document. The draft opinion runs 98 pages, including a 31-page appendix of historical state abortion laws. The document is replete with citations to previous court decisions, books and other authorities, and includes 118 footnotes. The appearances and timing of this draft are consistent with court practice.

The disclosure of Alito’s draft majority opinion – a rare breach of Supreme Court secrecy and tradition around its deliberations – comes as all sides in the abortion debate are girding for the ruling. Speculation about the looming decision has been intense since the December oral arguments indicated a majority was inclined to support the Mississippi law.

Under longstanding court procedures, justices hold preliminary votes on cases shortly after argument and assign a member of the majority to write a draft of the court’s opinion. The draft is often amended in consultation with other justices, and in some cases the justices change their votes altogether, creating the possibility that the current alignment on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization could change.

The chief justice typically assigns majority opinions when he is in the majority. When he is not, that decision is typically made by the most senior justice in the majority.

‘Exceptionally weak’

A George W. Bush appointee who joined the court in 2006, Alito argues that the 1973 abortion rights ruling was an ill-conceived and deeply flawed decision that invented a right mentioned nowhere in the Constitution and unwisely sought to wrench the contentious issue away from the political branches of government.

Alito’s draft ruling would overturn a decision by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that found the Mississippi law ran afoul of Supreme Court precedent by seeking to effectively ban abortions before viability.

Roe’s “survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant to the plainly incorrect,” Alito continues, adding that its reasoning was “exceptionally weak,” and that the original decision has had “damaging consequences.”

“The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and traditions,” Alito writes.

Alito approvingly quotes a broad range of critics of the Roe decision. He also points to liberal icons such as the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe, who at certain points in their careers took issue with the reasoning in Roe or its impact on the political process.

Alito’s skewering of Roe and the endorsement of at least four other justices for that unsparing critique is also a measure of the court’s rightward turn in recent decades. Roe was decided 7-2 in 1973, with five Republican appointees joining two justices nominated by Democratic presidents.

The overturning of Roe would almost immediately lead to stricter limits on abortion access in large swaths of the South and Midwest, with about half of the states set to immediately impose broad abortion bans. Any state could still legally allow the procedure.

“The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion,” the draft concludes. “Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

The draft contains the type of caustic rhetorical flourishes Alito is known for and that has caused Roberts, his fellow Bush appointee, some discomfort in the past.

At times, Alito’s draft opinion takes an almost mocking tone as it skewers the majority opinion in Roe, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, a Richard Nixon appointee who died in 1999.

Roe expressed the ‘feel[ing]’ that the Fourteenth Amendment was the provision that did the work, but its message seemed to be that the abortion right could be found somewhere in the Constitution and that specifying its exact location was not of paramount importance,” Alito writes.

Alito declares that one of the central tenets of Roe, the “viability” distinction between fetuses not capable of living outside the womb and those which can, “makes no sense.”

In several passages, he describes doctors and nurses who terminate pregnancies as “abortionists.”

When Roberts voted with liberal jurists in 2020 to block a Louisiana law imposing heavier regulations on abortion clinics, his solo concurrence used the more neutral term “abortion providers.” In contrast, Justice Clarence Thomas used the word “abortionist” 25 times in a solo dissent in the same case.

Alito’s use of the phrase “egregiously wrong” to describe Roe echoes language Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart used in December in defending his state’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The phrase was also contained in an opinion Kavanaugh wrote as part of a 2020 ruling that jury convictions in criminal cases must be unanimous.

In that opinion, Kavanaugh labeled two well-known Supreme Court decisions “egregiously wrong when decided”: the 1944 ruling upholding the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II, Korematsu v. United States, and the 1896 decision that blessed racial segregation under the rubric of “separate but equal,” Plessy v. Ferguson.

The high court has never formally overturned Korematsu, but did repudiate the decision in a 2018 ruling by Roberts that upheld then-President Donald Trump’s travel ban policy.

The legacy of Plessy v. Ferguson

Plessy remained the law of the land for nearly six decades until the court overturned it with the Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation ruling in 1954.

Quoting Kavanaugh, Alito writes of Plessy: “It was ‘egregiously wrong,’ on the day it was decided.”

Alito’s draft opinion includes, in small type, a list of about two pages’ worth of decisions in which the justices overruled prior precedents – in many instances reaching results praised by liberals.

The implication that allowing states to outlaw abortion is on par with ending legal racial segregation has been hotly disputed. But the comparison underscores the conservative justices’ belief that Roe is so flawed that the justices should disregard their usual hesitations about overturning precedent and wholeheartedly renounce it.

Alito’s draft opinion ventures even further into this racially sensitive territory by observing in a footnote that some early proponents of abortion rights also had unsavory views in favor of eugenics.

“Some such supporters have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population,” Alito writes. “It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are black.”

Alito writes that by raising the point he isn’t casting aspersions on anyone. “For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” he writes.

Alito also addresses concern about the impact the decision could have on public discourse. “We cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the public’s reaction to our work,” Alito writes. “We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision.”

In the main opinion in the 1992 Casey decision, Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and Davis Souter warned that the court would pay a “terrible price” for overruling Roe, despite criticism of the decision from some in the public and the legal community.

“While it has engendered disapproval, it has not been unworkable,” the three justices wrote then. “An entire generation has come of age free to assume Roe‘s concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions; no erosion of principle going to liberty or personal autonomy has left Roe‘s central holding a doctrinal remnant.”

When Dobbs was argued in December, Roberts seemed out of sync with the other conservative justices, as he has been in a number of cases including one challenging the Affordable Care Act.

At the argument session last fall, Roberts seemed to be searching for a way to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week ban without completely abandoning the Roe framework.

“Viability, it seems to me, doesn’t have anything to do with choice. But, if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time?” Roberts asked during the arguments. “The thing that is at issue before us today is 15 weeks.”

Nods to conservative colleagues

While Alito’s draft opinion doesn’t cater much to Roberts’ views, portions of it seem intended to address the specific interests of other justices. One passage argues that social attitudes toward out-of-wedlock pregnancies “have changed drastically” since the 1970s and that increased demand for adoption makes abortion less necessary.

Those points dovetail with issues that Barrett – a Trump appointee and the court’s newest member – raised at the December arguments. She suggested laws allowing people to surrender newborn babies on a no-questions-asked basis mean carrying a pregnancy to term doesn’t oblige one to engage in child rearing.

“Why don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem?” asked Barrett, who adopted two of her seven children.

Much of Alito’s draft is devoted to arguing that widespread criminalization of abortion during the 19th and early 20th century belies the notion that a right to abortion is implied in the Constitution.

The conservative justice attached to his draft a 31-page appendix listing laws passed to criminalize abortion during that period. Alito claims “an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment…from the earliest days of the common law until 1973.”

“Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Zero. None. No state constitutional provision had recognized such a right,” Alito adds.

Alito’s draft argues that rights protected by the Constitution but not explicitly mentioned in it – so-called unenumerated rights – must be strongly rooted in U.S. history and tradition. That form of analysis seems at odds with several of the court’s recent decisions, including many of its rulings backing gay rights.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision....”

Justice Samuel Alito in an initial draft majority opinion

Liberal justices seem likely to take issue with Alito’s assertion in the draft opinion that overturning Roe would not jeopardize other rights the courts have grounded in privacy, such as the right to contraception, to engage in private consensual sexual activity and to marry someone of the same sex.

“We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” Alito writes. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

Alito’s draft opinion rejects the idea that abortion bans reflect the subjugation of women in American society. “Women are not without electoral or political power,” he writes. “The percentage of women who register to vote and cast ballots is consistently higher than the percentage of men who do so.”

The Supreme Court remains one of Washington’s most secretive institutions, priding itself on protecting the confidentiality of its internal deliberations.

“At the Supreme Court, those who know don’t talk, and those who talk don’t know,” Ginsburg was fond of saying.

That tight-lipped reputation has eroded somewhat in recent decades due to a series of books by law clerks, law professors and investigative journalists. Some of these authors clearly had access to draft opinions such as the one obtained by POLITICO, but their books emerged well after the cases in question were resolved.

The justices held their final arguments of the current term on Wednesday. The court has set a series of sessions over the next two months to release rulings in its still-unresolved cases, including the Mississippi abortion case.

 

“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, foster said:

Time for Congress to codify Roe.

Dear Ladies,

The Republican Party just told you all to fuck off

“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, foster said:

Why is the party supposedly for individual freedoms so he’ll bent on taking those away from women?

 

...and voters

“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an unattached male, abortion and/or reproductive health is not my issue.  That said, abortion up until the 20th week (when with medical care a child could survive outside the womb) should be allowed for cases of rape, incest, and/or when the life or health of the mother is at stake.  While Partial birth abortion is barbaric and should be outlawed, I am not in favor of outlawing first trimester abortion because outlawing things will only encourage women to get abortions via illicit means and this will only increase mortality rates.  Ideally, every measure should be taken to dissuade women from having abortions (especially in the realm of housing, food and nutritional assistance, daycare and pre-school, and healthcare for mom and baby), but I am not sure how completely banning abortion is going to help.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Herodotus said:

As an unattached male, abortion and/or reproductive health is not my issue.  That said, abortion up until the 20th week (when with medical care a child could survive outside the womb) should be allowed for cases of rape, incest, and/or when the life or health of the mother is at stake.  While Partial birth abortion is barbaric and should be outlawed, I am not in favor of outlawing first trimester abortion because outlawing things will only encourage women to get abortions via illicit means and this will only increase mortality rates.  Ideally, every measure should be taken to dissuade women from having abortions (especially in the realm of housing, food and nutritional assistance, daycare and pre-school, and healthcare for mom and baby), but I am not sure how completely banning abortion is going to help.

Shit I had to unignore this post just to see how a guy who has never been fucked once in his life could have the gull to comment about abortion.

I was not disappointed.

There is some truth to Hero/Gibby's post -- he is indeed unattached....he is unattached to a penis that works.

Hero/Gibby will NEVER need to worry about abortion in his life -- unfortunately his Mother had the opportunity to abort him but chose to bring that dysfunctional piece of shit into this world -- since he has THE best form of birth control in the world that will ensure he will NEVER get fucked...his personality.

  • Like 1
  • Poop 2

Do Your Part to Improve The Range -- Please put the TRIO OF TRUMP FLUFFERSTM  on IGNORE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SpikedLemonade said:

Shit I had to unignore this post just to see how a guy who has never been fucked once in his life could have the gull to comment about abortion.

I was not disappointed.

There is some truth to Hero/Gibby's post -- he is indeed unattached....he is unattached to a penis that works.

Hero/Gibby will NEVER need to worry about abortion in his life -- unfortunately his Mother had the opportunity to abort him but chose to bring that dysfunctional piece of shit into this world -- since he has THE best form of birth control in the world that will ensure he will NEVER get fucked...his personality.

This coming from Rico Suave that makes up a fantasy life on a message board and fake accounts to help him live his fraudulent life here.

 

  • Laugh 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After abortion rights they will come for interracial and gay marriage. They will come after anything that has fallen under the 14th amendment. 

Conservatives never wanted a small government. They want big goverment to eliminate your freedom to privacy.

This is conservative Christian ideology. They don't want abortion or contraception legal. If they truly wanted to stop abortion, ok, what does contraception have to do with it? Wouldn't contraception be a good idea if you want less abortions? Wouldn't sex education be a good idea to teach students how to not get pregnant?

Nope! That's not what they want! They want to control women's bodies. They don't want people to have sex unless it is for procreation. They want a lower class of people who remain poor and impoverished. If you dont believe this is the case, you aren't paying attention, you are drinking their kool-aid, or you are an evangelical Christian retard.

  • Laugh 1
  • Like 1
  • Disagree 1

81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, travolta said:

People always say we should separate into blue and red. Giving states the right to govern and decide abortion laws does this.

If you live in CA, you can legally abort your baby after it has been born. Go for it. 
 

If you live in TX, you will need to have the abortion within a certain period of time. 
 

Does my body my choice apply to covid vaccinations? 

 If I jizz into the air, will you become pregnant?

No?

Well then these things are not the same.

What a stupid argument.

  • Like 1
  • Poop 2

81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

 If I jizz into the air, will you become pregnant?

No?

Well then these things are not the same.

What a stupid argument.

Certainly NOT a “stupid argument”! If you want ultimate autonomy over your individual body, both of these are VERY MUCH part of that freedom!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Toofast80 said:

Certainly NOT a “stupid argument”! If you want ultimate autonomy over your individual body, both of these are VERY MUCH part of that freedom!!

No, because one is to protect society as a whole. The other is control for control's sake.

If you don't want to get an abortion, don't get one. But don't tell others they can't get one.

You want to be part of a society that is healthy and safe, get vaccinated or accept the responsibility of your choices. Don't get vaccinated and you will lose access to parts of society. Being unvaccinated puts others at risk. These are entirely different issues that keep getting conflated as being the same. They are not.

  • Poop 1

81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

I feel bad for the innocent people this will harm. The fascists will not stop at abortion rights. Just listen to their rhetoric. They are telling us exactly what they will do. Next on the table will be trans rights and same sex marriage. Then interracial marriage. Most of the idiot trumpers will say, "I dont support ending gay marriage or interracial marriage", but they will continue to vote for people who will overturn their rights. I dont believe any of them.

Next on the table will be birth control

  • Laugh 1

“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JAHall93 said:

Interesting timing / the second the dems knew they were doomed in the midterms this comes out. I’m sure no coincidence on the timing. 
 

this summer is going to be a mini- civil war.  

Antifa will be back with their community destruction.

protesters will kill others, more division to come.

while the minions fight over left vs right - the NWO is killing America.
 

 

This is a Republican decision, this has nothing to do with the Democrats. If there was a link that the Supreme Court was going to overturn the second amendment then yeah, I would agree with you but this is your side that’s voting for this. And it’s not surprising because Republicans are very good at voting against our own self interest but really, while most of the responses I’ve seen on the Internet revolve around women no longer voting for Republicans, that’s just stupid. Because not only do Republicans vote against her own self interest, most of the people I see protesting in front of abortion clinics for women.

“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

No, because one is to protect society as a whole. The other is control for control's sake.

If you don't want to get an abortion, don't get one. But don't tell others they can't get one.

You want to be part of a society that is healthy and safe, get vaccinated or accept the responsibility of your choices. Don't get vaccinated and you will lose access to parts of society. Being unvaccinated puts others at risk. These are entirely different issues that keep getting conflated as being the same. They are not.

Stop with the “to be healthy get every vaccine they put in a needle”, it’s Bullshit. Every human body reacts differently to medications, FACT!

If somebody needs an abortion (I personally think it should be available) they should get one, don’t abuse it and have one once a year since she’s a fucking skank!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The left should be KILLING the right. At this point is there any difference between the right a d the far right?

MGT, Boebert, Goetz...yet they are not because they are focusing on dumb shit like making the phrase master bedroom illegal instead of improving things that need to be improved. They worry about removing statues and making Juneteenth a national holiday instead of passing legislation that gets rid of civil asset forfeiture. They refuse to look at foreign policy as well.

 

“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Toofast80 said:

Stop with the “to be healthy get every vaccine they put in a needle”, it’s Bullshit. Every human body reacts differently to medications, FACT!

If somebody needs an abortion (I personally think it should be available) they should get one, don’t abuse it and have one once a year since she’s a fucking skank!

Just to clarify, I am anti-abortion, specifically in the case of just an unwanted pregnancy. But I don’t have a problem with abortions when it comes to the health of the mother for the baby. And I’ve said that on here many times. But this is definitely a hot topic and it’s good to see a discussion instead of people just bitch slapping each other and name calling.

  • Like 1

“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, IT’S not even an active vote, it’s an opinion based on some form of leaked information! This seems like a “rallying cry” for all those leftist loonies to use to drum up attendance...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...