Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

All other state rules - existing and future - have to be assessed against the Rational Basis test themselves. That standard is very low so most restrictions will now be allowed that previously would have been disallowed. The standard necessarily involves judgement about what is Rational. Eventually one district will rule differently on a set of restrictions from another and eventually SCOTUS will take that case. IMO this is a mess and Robert's dissent looks better and better by the day.

---

Okay, I can see how that might work. And like you I don't understand why they chose to make it so messy, when Roberts' "clean" option was right there on the table.

That leads me to the conclusion that they're making a political statement more than laying out an actual workable legal standard. That also does not make me confident that they'll adhere to any kind of consistent standard for the cases that come later.

---

The only way "cases come later" is if a court of appeals blocks a law. Given how many conservative judges there are throughout the circuits where the forced birthers control legislation, it may be a while. I think the court was purposefully vague to make it as hard as possible for circuit courts to block overly restrictive laws.

I won't be surprised if we don't see another meaningful SCOTUS opinion on abortion for many years.

---

The fact we are so geographically / politically divided works to increase the odds SCOTUS takes more cases because different jurisdictions with their liberal and conservative judges will apply the RB to the same basic facts (Rape/Incest exception, for example) and reach different conclusions, thereby requiring SCOTUS to resolve the question.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

All other state rules - existing and future - have to be assessed against the Rational Basis test themselves. That standard is very low so most restrictions will now be allowed that previously would have been disallowed. The standard necessarily involves judgement about what is Rational. Eventually one district will rule differently on a set of restrictions from another and eventually SCOTUS will take that case. IMO this is a mess and Robert's dissent looks better and better by the day.

---

Okay, I can see how that might work. And like you I don't understand why they chose to make it so messy, when Roberts' "clean" option was right there on the table.

That leads me to the conclusion that they're making a political statement more than laying out an actual workable legal standard. That also does not make me confident that they'll adhere to any kind of consistent standard for the cases that come later.

---

The only way "cases come later" is if a court of appeals blocks a law. Given how many conservative judges there are throughout the circuits where the forced birthers control legislation, it may be a while. I think the court was purposefully vague to make it as hard as possible for circuit courts to block overly restrictive laws.

I won't be surprised if we don't see another meaningful SCOTUS opinion on abortion for many years.

---

Yeah, they can easily avoid it by simply not taking up cases and allowing lower court rulings to stand. The courts in conservative states are already stacked with conservative judges. Shouldn't be too hard.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Courts will hear cases and eventually rule that restrictions like this or which restrict abortions before a woman can know she's pregnant, have time to process / make a decision and get scheduled all fail the Rational Basis test.

---

Curious: if the Supreme Court intended this to be the outcome, why didn't they simply rule that way? They could have carved out exceptions like this from the jump. They didn't. Why then would they uphold any more challenges to state laws?

---

Because that issue was not before the supreme court and may not ever be now that Roe is gone.

Those issues will be addressed in the state legislatures and state courts, including, any claims that a women's rights under state or federal laws (and state constitutions) are violated. If there are federal claims - which will be harder if not impossible - the rational basis test will apply.

The link below goes state by state in discussing current and in some cases pending abortion laws.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/?itm_source=parsely-api

I didn't check every single state with restrictive laws. But based on a spot check, it appears that even the most restrictive laws allow for abortion for a mother's health (thought not always rape/incest) and in some cases limited other circumstances.

Beyond that, I think this article is a very good discussion.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/27/what-to-expect-in-a-post-roe-world/

Here is a key part:

"While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi's 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision."

______________

What does that tell me? That politicians on both sides are wildly out of step with main stream voters. Many red states are too restrictive on abortion; and many blue states are far too permissive (e.g., abortion through the 9th month). As others have posted, we got to that sad place precisely because, after Roe, the political system awarded the most extreme on each side. Roe mostly insulate them from the practical consequences of their extreme positions. Not anymore, though it will take time.

---

This does not answer my question. I asked why abortion restrictions in certain states would be struck down by the courts, given the recent Dobbs ruling.

I acknowledge that those laws could change thanks to voting and the political process. I don't understand the point about the courts.

---

The Dobbs decision basically said the law as enunciated by Roe and Casey was wrong, that they misinterpreted the Constitution and applied the wrong legal basis for assessing abortion restrictions. The only abortion restriction before the was Mississippi's 15 week rule. They announced the new standard/test (Rational Basis), applied it to the 15 week rule and decided it was allowed. All other state rules - existing and future - have to be assessed on the RB test themselves. IMO this is a mess and Robert's dissent looks better and better by the day.

---

Roberts dissent is garbage. He says the old test is wrong because viability isn't the real issue.

Quote:

---

Today, the Court nonetheless rules for Mississippi by do-
ing just that. I would take a more measured course. I agree
with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and
Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare de-
cisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abor-
tion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman's
right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right
should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable
opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further
certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi's law al-
lows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well be-
yond the point at which it is considered "late" to discover a
pregnancy. See A. Ayoola, Late Recognition of Unintended
Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (preg-
nancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six
weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning
the adequacy of that opportunity.

---

The reason I think it's garbage is that in practice women need time not just to discover pregnancy but to take action. Further, the deeper in pregnancy you go, the more you find out about the fetus, including fatal and non-fatal anomalies.

Beyond that, Mississippi literally has one abortion provider - the plaintiff in this case. 91% of the 600k women of reproductive age in MS live in counties without abortion providers.

I could have understood if this case was remanded with a multi-prong test to determine whether women in MS truly have reasonable access to reproductive care, including some form of termination, but rather than do that the court either lied or ignored what's really happening on the ground in MS. This is also true in many other states.

This is the sort of outcome you get when you have clerics rendering opinions, not prudent jurists interpreting the constitution.

---

Roberts probably cared that Roe was wrong but cared more about SCOTUS.

I do expect cases to come soon that call into question the very point you make. For example, how can Tx's 6 week (?) restriction pass even the RB test? A right that can't be exercised because a women can't yet know she's pregnant, can't access the healthcare in time (ie X number of providers), etc isn't a right at all and virtually by definition cannot be Rational. I appreciate skeptics see it differently but I have some faith it will eventually land somewhere much different than it seems today, though still not where it was pre-Dobbs

---

12 of the 17 judges in the 5th circuit were appointed by Trump, Dubya and Reagan (6 by Trump alone). Alito is the circuit justice.

Would you really be surprised if the Texas law is upheld by the 5th circuit and the court denies cert?

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Courts will hear cases and eventually rule that restrictions like this or which restrict abortions before a woman can know she's pregnant, have time to process / make a decision and get scheduled all fail the Rational Basis test.

---

Curious: if the Supreme Court intended this to be the outcome, why didn't they simply rule that way? They could have carved out exceptions like this from the jump. They didn't. Why then would they uphold any more challenges to state laws?

---

Because that issue was not before the supreme court and may not ever be now that Roe is gone.

Those issues will be addressed in the state legislatures and state courts, including, any claims that a women's rights under state or federal laws (and state constitutions) are violated. If there are federal claims - which will be harder if not impossible - the rational basis test will apply.

The link below goes state by state in discussing current and in some cases pending abortion laws.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/?itm_source=parsely-api

I didn't check every single state with restrictive laws. But based on a spot check, it appears that even the most restrictive laws allow for abortion for a mother's health (thought not always rape/incest) and in some cases limited other circumstances.

Beyond that, I think this article is a very good discussion.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/27/what-to-expect-in-a-post-roe-world/

Here is a key part:

"While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi's 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision."

______________

What does that tell me? That politicians on both sides are wildly out of step with main stream voters. Many red states are too restrictive on abortion; and many blue states are far too permissive (e.g., abortion through the 9th month). As others have posted, we got to that sad place precisely because, after Roe, the political system awarded the most extreme on each side. Roe mostly insulate them from the practical consequences of their extreme positions. Not anymore, though it will take time.

---

This does not answer my question. I asked why abortion restrictions in certain states would be struck down by the courts, given the recent Dobbs ruling.

I acknowledge that those laws could change thanks to voting and the political process. I don't understand the point about the courts.

---

The Dobbs decision basically said the law as enunciated by Roe and Casey was wrong, that they misinterpreted the Constitution and applied the wrong legal basis for assessing abortion restrictions. The only abortion restriction before the was Mississippi's 15 week rule. They announced the new standard/test (Rational Basis), applied it to the 15 week rule and decided it was allowed. All other state rules - existing and future - have to be assessed on the RB test themselves. IMO this is a mess and Robert's dissent looks better and better by the day.

---

Roberts dissent is garbage. He says the old test is wrong because viability isn't the real issue.

Quote:

---

Today, the Court nonetheless rules for Mississippi by do-
ing just that. I would take a more measured course. I agree
with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and
Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare de-
cisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abor-
tion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman's
right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right
should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable
opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further
certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi's law al-
lows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well be-
yond the point at which it is considered "late" to discover a
pregnancy. See A. Ayoola, Late Recognition of Unintended
Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (preg-
nancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six
weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning
the adequacy of that opportunity.

---

The reason I think it's garbage is that in practice women need time not just to discover pregnancy but to take action. Further, the deeper in pregnancy you go, the more you find out about the fetus, including fatal and non-fatal anomalies.

Beyond that, Mississippi literally has one abortion provider - the plaintiff in this case. 91% of the 600k women of reproductive age in MS live in counties without abortion providers.

I could have understood if this case was remanded with a multi-prong test to determine whether women in MS truly have reasonable access to reproductive care, including some form of termination, but rather than do that the court either lied or ignored what's really happening on the ground in MS. This is also true in many other states.

This is the sort of outcome you get when you have clerics rendering opinions, not prudent jurists interpreting the constitution.

---

Roberts probably cared that Roe was wrong but cared more about SCOTUS.

I do expect cases to come soon that call into question the very point you make. For example, how can Tx's 6 week (?) restriction pass even the RB test? A right that can't be exercised because a women can't yet know she's pregnant, can't access the healthcare in time (ie X number of providers), etc isn't a right at all and virtually by definition cannot be Rational. I appreciate skeptics see it differently but I have some faith it will eventually land somewhere much different than it seems today, though still not where it was pre-Dobbs

---

12 of the 17 judges in the 5th circuit were appointed by Trump, Dubya and Reagan (6 by Trump alone). Alito is the circuit justice.

Would you really be surprised if the Texas law is upheld by the 5th circuit and the court denies cert?

---

Some restrictions are so irrational that I would like to believe any judge would rule accordingly. Perhaps I am being nave. But more than that I am counting on liberal jurisdictions ruling the opposite way on the same / similar issues leading to conflicts between the jurisdictions that have to be resolved by SCOTUS.

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Courts will hear cases and eventually rule that restrictions like this or which restrict abortions before a woman can know she's pregnant, have time to process / make a decision and get scheduled all fail the Rational Basis test.

---

Curious: if the Supreme Court intended this to be the outcome, why didn't they simply rule that way? They could have carved out exceptions like this from the jump. They didn't. Why then would they uphold any more challenges to state laws?

---

Because that issue was not before the supreme court and may not ever be now that Roe is gone.

Those issues will be addressed in the state legislatures and state courts, including, any claims that a women's rights under state or federal laws (and state constitutions) are violated. If there are federal claims - which will be harder if not impossible - the rational basis test will apply.

The link below goes state by state in discussing current and in some cases pending abortion laws.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/?itm_source=parsely-api

I didn't check every single state with restrictive laws. But based on a spot check, it appears that even the most restrictive laws allow for abortion for a mother's health (thought not always rape/incest) and in some cases limited other circumstances.

Beyond that, I think this article is a very good discussion.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/27/what-to-expect-in-a-post-roe-world/

Here is a key part:

"While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi's 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision."

______________

What does that tell me? That politicians on both sides are wildly out of step with main stream voters. Many red states are too restrictive on abortion; and many blue states are far too permissive (e.g., abortion through the 9th month). As others have posted, we got to that sad place precisely because, after Roe, the political system awarded the most extreme on each side. Roe mostly insulate them from the practical consequences of their extreme positions. Not anymore, though it will take time.

---

This does not answer my question. I asked why abortion restrictions in certain states would be struck down by the courts, given the recent Dobbs ruling.

I acknowledge that those laws could change thanks to voting and the political process. I don't understand the point about the courts.

---

The Dobbs decision basically said the law as enunciated by Roe and Casey was wrong, that they misinterpreted the Constitution and applied the wrong legal basis for assessing abortion restrictions. The only abortion restriction before the was Mississippi's 15 week rule. They announced the new standard/test (Rational Basis), applied it to the 15 week rule and decided it was allowed. All other state rules - existing and future - have to be assessed on the RB test themselves. IMO this is a mess and Robert's dissent looks better and better by the day.

---

Roberts dissent is garbage. He says the old test is wrong because viability isn't the real issue.

Quote:

---

Today, the Court nonetheless rules for Mississippi by do-
ing just that. I would take a more measured course. I agree
with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and
Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare de-
cisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abor-
tion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman's
right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right
should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable
opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further
certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi's law al-
lows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well be-
yond the point at which it is considered "late" to discover a
pregnancy. See A. Ayoola, Late Recognition of Unintended
Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (preg-
nancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six
weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning
the adequacy of that opportunity.

---

The reason I think it's garbage is that in practice women need time not just to discover pregnancy but to take action. Further, the deeper in pregnancy you go, the more you find out about the fetus, including fatal and non-fatal anomalies.

Beyond that, Mississippi literally has one abortion provider - the plaintiff in this case. 91% of the 600k women of reproductive age in MS live in counties without abortion providers.

I could have understood if this case was remanded with a multi-prong test to determine whether women in MS truly have reasonable access to reproductive care, including some form of termination, but rather than do that the court either lied or ignored what's really happening on the ground in MS. This is also true in many other states.

This is the sort of outcome you get when you have clerics rendering opinions, not prudent jurists interpreting the constitution.

---

Roberts probably cared that Roe was wrong but cared more about SCOTUS.

I do expect cases to come soon that call into question the very point you make. For example, how can Tx's 6 week (?) restriction pass even the RB test? A right that can't be exercised because a women can't yet know she's pregnant, can't access the healthcare in time (ie X number of providers), etc isn't a right at all and virtually by definition cannot be Rational. I appreciate skeptics see it differently but I have some faith it will eventually land somewhere much different than it seems today, though still not where it was pre-Dobbs

---

12 of the 17 judges in the 5th circuit were appointed by Trump, Dubya and Reagan (6 by Trump alone). Alito is the circuit justice.

Would you really be surprised if the Texas law is upheld by the 5th circuit and the court denies cert?

---

Some restrictions are so irrational that I would like to believe any judge would rule accordingly. Perhaps I am being nave. But more than that I am counting on liberal jurisdictions ruling the opposite way on the same / similar issues leading to conflicts between the jurisdictions that have to be resolved by SCOTUS.

---

I suppose it's possible. Until then, we have this. Do you think this is barbaric?

“Today we saw a patient in Dayton who has cancer. Her doctors told her she would have to terminate before she received chemotherapy treatment. She will have to travel to Indiana." https://t.co/hxKKOQfiA1

— Josh Sweigart (@JoshSweigart) June 28, 2022

Go!Bears said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Others have alluded to it in the thread already but that gets us in the space of how much D's really want to solve the problem vs have the issue for November, filibusters, the inability of D leadership to hold its caucus together, etc. I suspect that if there is a Red wave on Nov 6 D's will mysteriously find a way to pass an abortion bill well in advance of R's taking over in January.

---

---

---

It would be silly to give up the filibuster, days before becoming the minority.

---

Republicans will kill it to get something they want anyway. Get what you can get.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Courts will hear cases and eventually rule that restrictions like this or which restrict abortions before a woman can know she's pregnant, have time to process / make a decision and get scheduled all fail the Rational Basis test.

---

Curious: if the Supreme Court intended this to be the outcome, why didn't they simply rule that way? They could have carved out exceptions like this from the jump. They didn't. Why then would they uphold any more challenges to state laws?

---

Because that issue was not before the supreme court and may not ever be now that Roe is gone.

Those issues will be addressed in the state legislatures and state courts, including, any claims that a women's rights under state or federal laws (and state constitutions) are violated. If there are federal claims - which will be harder if not impossible - the rational basis test will apply.

The link below goes state by state in discussing current and in some cases pending abortion laws.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/?itm_source=parsely-api

I didn't check every single state with restrictive laws. But based on a spot check, it appears that even the most restrictive laws allow for abortion for a mother's health (thought not always rape/incest) and in some cases limited other circumstances.

Beyond that, I think this article is a very good discussion.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/27/what-to-expect-in-a-post-roe-world/

Here is a key part:

"While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi's 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision."

______________

What does that tell me? That politicians on both sides are wildly out of step with main stream voters. Many red states are too restrictive on abortion; and many blue states are far too permissive (e.g., abortion through the 9th month). As others have posted, we got to that sad place precisely because, after Roe, the political system awarded the most extreme on each side. Roe mostly insulate them from the practical consequences of their extreme positions. Not anymore, though it will take time.

---

This does not answer my question. I asked why abortion restrictions in certain states would be struck down by the courts, given the recent Dobbs ruling.

I acknowledge that those laws could change thanks to voting and the political process. I don't understand the point about the courts.

---

The Dobbs decision basically said the law as enunciated by Roe and Casey was wrong, that they misinterpreted the Constitution and applied the wrong legal basis for assessing abortion restrictions. The only abortion restriction before the was Mississippi's 15 week rule. They announced the new standard/test (Rational Basis), applied it to the 15 week rule and decided it was allowed. All other state rules - existing and future - have to be assessed on the RB test themselves. IMO this is a mess and Robert's dissent looks better and better by the day.

---

Roberts dissent is garbage. He says the old test is wrong because viability isn't the real issue.

Quote:

---

Today, the Court nonetheless rules for Mississippi by do-
ing just that. I would take a more measured course. I agree
with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and
Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare de-
cisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abor-
tion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman's
right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right
should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable
opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further
certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi's law al-
lows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well be-
yond the point at which it is considered "late" to discover a
pregnancy. See A. Ayoola, Late Recognition of Unintended
Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (preg-
nancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six
weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning
the adequacy of that opportunity.

---

The reason I think it's garbage is that in practice women need time not just to discover pregnancy but to take action. Further, the deeper in pregnancy you go, the more you find out about the fetus, including fatal and non-fatal anomalies.

Beyond that, Mississippi literally has one abortion provider - the plaintiff in this case. 91% of the 600k women of reproductive age in MS live in counties without abortion providers.

I could have understood if this case was remanded with a multi-prong test to determine whether women in MS truly have reasonable access to reproductive care, including some form of termination, but rather than do that the court either lied or ignored what's really happening on the ground in MS. This is also true in many other states.

This is the sort of outcome you get when you have clerics rendering opinions, not prudent jurists interpreting the constitution.

---

Roberts probably cared that Roe was wrong but cared more about SCOTUS.

I do expect cases to come soon that call into question the very point you make. For example, how can Tx's 6 week (?) restriction pass even the RB test? A right that can't be exercised because a women can't yet know she's pregnant, can't access the healthcare in time (ie X number of providers), etc isn't a right at all and virtually by definition cannot be Rational. I appreciate skeptics see it differently but I have some faith it will eventually land somewhere much different than it seems today, though still not where it was pre-Dobbs

---

12 of the 17 judges in the 5th circuit were appointed by Trump, Dubya and Reagan (6 by Trump alone). Alito is the circuit justice.

Would you really be surprised if the Texas law is upheld by the 5th circuit and the court denies cert?

---

This is a question for Tequila and Unit2. On what basis would a plaintiff be in FEDERAL court to challenge a state law restricting, or for that matter banning, abortion? What gives the federal court jurisdiction? Maybe a gender or racial discrimination type of claim? I think most of those types of claims were adjudicated in the Roe era - maybe there's some re-litigation under rational basis, but I think not much.

I think the state courts will be the new litigation battleground. Claims based on state laws and/or state constitutions in particular. I expect to see a lot of plaintiff asserting that the applicable State's constitution has a right to privacy, etc.

And Unit2 - I agree that Robert's concurrence was absolute trash. He wanted to craft a political compromise that: (i) neither of the parties asked for and stated was unworkable; and (ii) represented the exact type of judicial activism he and the other conservatives have traditionally railed against (i.e., crafting a judicial standard out of thin air, as in the original Roe case).

I don't think any "abortion rights" happens in Congress. The court made that moot. I suppose we could have " end the filibuster" votes that are repealed every two or four years but good friends Biden and McConnell don't want that as it opens up endless retributions. The best thing the Dems could do is codify that everyone can have access to FDA approved abortion pills for medical reasons no matter the state policy as a matter of controlling their own health and to protect the privacy of patients

Anarchistbear said:

---

I don't think any "abortion rights" happens in Congress. The court made that moot. I suppose we could have " end the filibuster" votes that are repealed every two or four years but good friends Biden and McConnell don't want that as it opens up endless retributions. The best thing the Dems could do is codify that everyone can have access to FDA approved abortion pills for medical reasons no matter the state policy as a matter of controlling their own health and to protect the privacy of patients

---

How is that solution any different from the problem of the law changing every 2 or 4 years?

Personally, I think it would be great for laws to change every 2 or 4 years. People could see the consequences of their votes rather than be taken in by hucksters.

bearister said:

---

"I went to law school with [Justice Thomas],'Hillary Clinton told CBS Mornings in a pre-recorded interview. 'He's been a person of grievance for as long as I've known him resentment, grievance, anger."

---

That is the most Hillariously rich thing I've read in I don't know how long. Thanks for the hearty LOL

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Courts will hear cases and eventually rule that restrictions like this or which restrict abortions before a woman can know she's pregnant, have time to process / make a decision and get scheduled all fail the Rational Basis test.

---

Curious: if the Supreme Court intended this to be the outcome, why didn't they simply rule that way? They could have carved out exceptions like this from the jump. They didn't. Why then would they uphold any more challenges to state laws?

---

Because that issue was not before the supreme court and may not ever be now that Roe is gone.

Those issues will be addressed in the state legislatures and state courts, including, any claims that a women's rights under state or federal laws (and state constitutions) are violated. If there are federal claims - which will be harder if not impossible - the rational basis test will apply.

The link below goes state by state in discussing current and in some cases pending abortion laws.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/?itm_source=parsely-api

I didn't check every single state with restrictive laws. But based on a spot check, it appears that even the most restrictive laws allow for abortion for a mother's health (thought not always rape/incest) and in some cases limited other circumstances.

Beyond that, I think this article is a very good discussion.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/27/what-to-expect-in-a-post-roe-world/

Here is a key part:

"While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi's 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision."

______________

What does that tell me? That politicians on both sides are wildly out of step with main stream voters. Many red states are too restrictive on abortion; and many blue states are far too permissive (e.g., abortion through the 9th month). As others have posted, we got to that sad place precisely because, after Roe, the political system awarded the most extreme on each side. Roe mostly insulate them from the practical consequences of their extreme positions. Not anymore, though it will take time.

---

This does not answer my question. I asked why abortion restrictions in certain states would be struck down by the courts, given the recent Dobbs ruling.

I acknowledge that those laws could change thanks to voting and the political process. I don't understand the point about the courts.

---

The Dobbs decision basically said the law as enunciated by Roe and Casey was wrong, that they misinterpreted the Constitution and applied the wrong legal basis for assessing abortion restrictions. The only abortion restriction before the was Mississippi's 15 week rule. They announced the new standard/test (Rational Basis), applied it to the 15 week rule and decided it was allowed. All other state rules - existing and future - have to be assessed on the RB test themselves. IMO this is a mess and Robert's dissent looks better and better by the day.

---

Roberts dissent is garbage. He says the old test is wrong because viability isn't the real issue.

Quote:

---

Today, the Court nonetheless rules for Mississippi by do-
ing just that. I would take a more measured course. I agree
with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and
Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare de-
cisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abor-
tion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman's
right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right
should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable
opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further
certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi's law al-
lows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well be-
yond the point at which it is considered "late" to discover a
pregnancy. See A. Ayoola, Late Recognition of Unintended
Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (preg-
nancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six
weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning
the adequacy of that opportunity.

---

The reason I think it's garbage is that in practice women need time not just to discover pregnancy but to take action. Further, the deeper in pregnancy you go, the more you find out about the fetus, including fatal and non-fatal anomalies.

Beyond that, Mississippi literally has one abortion provider - the plaintiff in this case. 91% of the 600k women of reproductive age in MS live in counties without abortion providers.

I could have understood if this case was remanded with a multi-prong test to determine whether women in MS truly have reasonable access to reproductive care, including some form of termination, but rather than do that the court either lied or ignored what's really happening on the ground in MS. This is also true in many other states.

This is the sort of outcome you get when you have clerics rendering opinions, not prudent jurists interpreting the constitution.

---

Roberts probably cared that Roe was wrong but cared more about SCOTUS.

I do expect cases to come soon that call into question the very point you make. For example, how can Tx's 6 week (?) restriction pass even the RB test? A right that can't be exercised because a women can't yet know she's pregnant, can't access the healthcare in time (ie X number of providers), etc isn't a right at all and virtually by definition cannot be Rational. I appreciate skeptics see it differently but I have some faith it will eventually land somewhere much different than it seems today, though still not where it was pre-Dobbs

---

12 of the 17 judges in the 5th circuit were appointed by Trump, Dubya and Reagan (6 by Trump alone). Alito is the circuit justice.

Would you really be surprised if the Texas law is upheld by the 5th circuit and the court denies cert?

---

This is a question for Tequila and Unit2. On what basis would a plaintiff be in FEDERAL court to challenge a state law restricting, or for that matter banning, abortion? What gives the federal court jurisdiction? Maybe a gender or racial discrimination type of claim? I think most of those types of claims were adjudicated in the Roe era - maybe there's some re-litigation under rational basis, but I think not much.

I think the state courts will be the new litigation battleground. Claims based on state laws and/or state constitutions in particular. I expect to see a lot of plaintiff asserting that the applicable State's constitution has a right to privacy, etc.

And Unit2 - I agree that Robert's concurrence was absolute trash. He wanted to craft a political compromise that: (i) neither of the parties asked for and stated was unworkable; and (ii) represented the exact type of judicial activism he and the other conservatives have traditionally railed against (i.e., crafting a judicial standard out of thin air, as in the original Roe case).

---

I am not a practicing attorney so I may be over my skiis. But I believe it would be the Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment.

dajo9 said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

I don't think any "abortion rights" happens in Congress. The court made that moot. I suppose we could have " end the filibuster" votes that are repealed every two or four years but good friends Biden and McConnell don't want that as it opens up endless retributions. The best thing the Dems could do is codify that everyone can have access to FDA approved abortion pills for medical reasons no matter the state policy as a matter of controlling their own health and to protect the privacy of patients

---

How is that solution any different from the problem of the law changing every 2 or 4 years?

Personally, I think it would be great for laws to change every 2 or 4 years. People could see the consequences of their votes rather than be taken in by hucksters.

---

I think any federal right to abortion by a 51 vote would be performarive and very narrow. Likewise a Republican ban of abortion is off the table for the same reason: the authority resides in the states.

I think we need to subvert this law ant the patriarchy by moving pass the outmoded "abortion" - which conjures up clinics , back alleys and physical space- and codifying that any woman has a private right to take any prescription given by her doctor

bearister said:

---

"I went to law school with [Justice Thomas],'Hillary Clinton told CBS Mornings in a pre-recorded interview. 'He's been a person of grievance for as long as I've known him resentment, grievance, anger."

---

Clarence Thomas is Goimg4Roses! Nah

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Courts will hear cases and eventually rule that restrictions like this or which restrict abortions before a woman can know she's pregnant, have time to process / make a decision and get scheduled all fail the Rational Basis test.

---

Curious: if the Supreme Court intended this to be the outcome, why didn't they simply rule that way? They could have carved out exceptions like this from the jump. They didn't. Why then would they uphold any more challenges to state laws?

---

Because that issue was not before the supreme court and may not ever be now that Roe is gone.

Those issues will be addressed in the state legislatures and state courts, including, any claims that a women's rights under state or federal laws (and state constitutions) are violated. If there are federal claims - which will be harder if not impossible - the rational basis test will apply.

The link below goes state by state in discussing current and in some cases pending abortion laws.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/?itm_source=parsely-api

I didn't check every single state with restrictive laws. But based on a spot check, it appears that even the most restrictive laws allow for abortion for a mother's health (thought not always rape/incest) and in some cases limited other circumstances.

Beyond that, I think this article is a very good discussion.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/27/what-to-expect-in-a-post-roe-world/

Here is a key part:

"While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi's 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision."

______________

What does that tell me? That politicians on both sides are wildly out of step with main stream voters. Many red states are too restrictive on abortion; and many blue states are far too permissive (e.g., abortion through the 9th month). As others have posted, we got to that sad place precisely because, after Roe, the political system awarded the most extreme on each side. Roe mostly insulate them from the practical consequences of their extreme positions. Not anymore, though it will take time.

---

This does not answer my question. I asked why abortion restrictions in certain states would be struck down by the courts, given the recent Dobbs ruling.

I acknowledge that those laws could change thanks to voting and the political process. I don't understand the point about the courts.

---

The Dobbs decision basically said the law as enunciated by Roe and Casey was wrong, that they misinterpreted the Constitution and applied the wrong legal basis for assessing abortion restrictions. The only abortion restriction before the was Mississippi's 15 week rule. They announced the new standard/test (Rational Basis), applied it to the 15 week rule and decided it was allowed. All other state rules - existing and future - have to be assessed on the RB test themselves. IMO this is a mess and Robert's dissent looks better and better by the day.

---

Roberts dissent is garbage. He says the old test is wrong because viability isn't the real issue.

Quote:

---

Today, the Court nonetheless rules for Mississippi by do-
ing just that. I would take a more measured course. I agree
with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and
Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare de-
cisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abor-
tion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman's
right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right
should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable
opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further
certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi's law al-
lows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well be-
yond the point at which it is considered "late" to discover a
pregnancy. See A. Ayoola, Late Recognition of Unintended
Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (preg-
nancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six
weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning
the adequacy of that opportunity.

---

The reason I think it's garbage is that in practice women need time not just to discover pregnancy but to take action. Further, the deeper in pregnancy you go, the more you find out about the fetus, including fatal and non-fatal anomalies.

Beyond that, Mississippi literally has one abortion provider - the plaintiff in this case. 91% of the 600k women of reproductive age in MS live in counties without abortion providers.

I could have understood if this case was remanded with a multi-prong test to determine whether women in MS truly have reasonable access to reproductive care, including some form of termination, but rather than do that the court either lied or ignored what's really happening on the ground in MS. This is also true in many other states.

This is the sort of outcome you get when you have clerics rendering opinions, not prudent jurists interpreting the constitution.

---

Roberts probably cared that Roe was wrong but cared more about SCOTUS.

I do expect cases to come soon that call into question the very point you make. For example, how can Tx's 6 week (?) restriction pass even the RB test? A right that can't be exercised because a women can't yet know she's pregnant, can't access the healthcare in time (ie X number of providers), etc isn't a right at all and virtually by definition cannot be Rational. I appreciate skeptics see it differently but I have some faith it will eventually land somewhere much different than it seems today, though still not where it was pre-Dobbs

---

12 of the 17 judges in the 5th circuit were appointed by Trump, Dubya and Reagan (6 by Trump alone). Alito is the circuit justice.

Would you really be surprised if the Texas law is upheld by the 5th circuit and the court denies cert?

---

This is a question for Tequila and Unit2. On what basis would a plaintiff be in FEDERAL court to challenge a state law restricting, or for that matter banning, abortion? What gives the federal court jurisdiction? Maybe a gender or racial discrimination type of claim? I think most of those types of claims were adjudicated in the Roe era - maybe there's some re-litigation under rational basis, but I think not much.

I think the state courts will be the new litigation battleground. Claims based on state laws and/or state constitutions in particular. I expect to see a lot of plaintiff asserting that the applicable State's constitution has a right to privacy, etc.

And Unit2 - I agree that Robert's concurrence was absolute trash. He wanted to craft a political compromise that: (i) neither of the parties asked for and stated was unworkable; and (ii) represented the exact type of judicial activism he and the other conservatives have traditionally railed against (i.e., crafting a judicial standard out of thin air, as in the original Roe case).

---

Even people who disagree on much can find common ground!
:beer:

tequila4kapp said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Courts will hear cases and eventually rule that restrictions like this or which restrict abortions before a woman can know she's pregnant, have time to process / make a decision and get scheduled all fail the Rational Basis test.

---

Curious: if the Supreme Court intended this to be the outcome, why didn't they simply rule that way? They could have carved out exceptions like this from the jump. They didn't. Why then would they uphold any more challenges to state laws?

---

Because that issue was not before the supreme court and may not ever be now that Roe is gone.

Those issues will be addressed in the state legislatures and state courts, including, any claims that a women's rights under state or federal laws (and state constitutions) are violated. If there are federal claims - which will be harder if not impossible - the rational basis test will apply.

The link below goes state by state in discussing current and in some cases pending abortion laws.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/?itm_source=parsely-api

I didn't check every single state with restrictive laws. But based on a spot check, it appears that even the most restrictive laws allow for abortion for a mother's health (thought not always rape/incest) and in some cases limited other circumstances.

Beyond that, I think this article is a very good discussion.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/27/what-to-expect-in-a-post-roe-world/

Here is a key part:

"While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi's 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision."

______________

What does that tell me? That politicians on both sides are wildly out of step with main stream voters. Many red states are too restrictive on abortion; and many blue states are far too permissive (e.g., abortion through the 9th month). As others have posted, we got to that sad place precisely because, after Roe, the political system awarded the most extreme on each side. Roe mostly insulate them from the practical consequences of their extreme positions. Not anymore, though it will take time.

---

This does not answer my question. I asked why abortion restrictions in certain states would be struck down by the courts, given the recent Dobbs ruling.

I acknowledge that those laws could change thanks to voting and the political process. I don't understand the point about the courts.

---

The Dobbs decision basically said the law as enunciated by Roe and Casey was wrong, that they misinterpreted the Constitution and applied the wrong legal basis for assessing abortion restrictions. The only abortion restriction before the was Mississippi's 15 week rule. They announced the new standard/test (Rational Basis), applied it to the 15 week rule and decided it was allowed. All other state rules - existing and future - have to be assessed on the RB test themselves. IMO this is a mess and Robert's dissent looks better and better by the day.

---

Roberts dissent is garbage. He says the old test is wrong because viability isn't the real issue.

Quote:

---

Today, the Court nonetheless rules for Mississippi by do-
ing just that. I would take a more measured course. I agree
with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and
Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare de-
cisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abor-
tion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman's
right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right
should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable
opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further
certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi's law al-
lows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well be-
yond the point at which it is considered "late" to discover a
pregnancy. See A. Ayoola, Late Recognition of Unintended
Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (preg-
nancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six
weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning
the adequacy of that opportunity.

---

The reason I think it's garbage is that in practice women need time not just to discover pregnancy but to take action. Further, the deeper in pregnancy you go, the more you find out about the fetus, including fatal and non-fatal anomalies.

Beyond that, Mississippi literally has one abortion provider - the plaintiff in this case. 91% of the 600k women of reproductive age in MS live in counties without abortion providers.

I could have understood if this case was remanded with a multi-prong test to determine whether women in MS truly have reasonable access to reproductive care, including some form of termination, but rather than do that the court either lied or ignored what's really happening on the ground in MS. This is also true in many other states.

This is the sort of outcome you get when you have clerics rendering opinions, not prudent jurists interpreting the constitution.

---

Roberts probably cared that Roe was wrong but cared more about SCOTUS.

I do expect cases to come soon that call into question the very point you make. For example, how can Tx's 6 week (?) restriction pass even the RB test? A right that can't be exercised because a women can't yet know she's pregnant, can't access the healthcare in time (ie X number of providers), etc isn't a right at all and virtually by definition cannot be Rational. I appreciate skeptics see it differently but I have some faith it will eventually land somewhere much different than it seems today, though still not where it was pre-Dobbs

---

12 of the 17 judges in the 5th circuit were appointed by Trump, Dubya and Reagan (6 by Trump alone). Alito is the circuit justice.

Would you really be surprised if the Texas law is upheld by the 5th circuit and the court denies cert?

---

This is a question for Tequila and Unit2. On what basis would a plaintiff be in FEDERAL court to challenge a state law restricting, or for that matter banning, abortion? What gives the federal court jurisdiction? Maybe a gender or racial discrimination type of claim? I think most of those types of claims were adjudicated in the Roe era - maybe there's some re-litigation under rational basis, but I think not much.

I think the state courts will be the new litigation battleground. Claims based on state laws and/or state constitutions in particular. I expect to see a lot of plaintiff asserting that the applicable State's constitution has a right to privacy, etc.

And Unit2 - I agree that Robert's concurrence was absolute trash. He wanted to craft a political compromise that: (i) neither of the parties asked for and stated was unworkable; and (ii) represented the exact type of judicial activism he and the other conservatives have traditionally railed against (i.e., crafting a judicial standard out of thin air, as in the original Roe case).

---

I am not a practicing attorney so I may be over my skiis. But I believe it would be the Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment.

---

FWIW ACLU seems to agree federal litigation will be limited.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/roe-dobbs-aclu/

BearGoggles said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Courts will hear cases and eventually rule that restrictions like this or which restrict abortions before a woman can know she's pregnant, have time to process / make a decision and get scheduled all fail the Rational Basis test.

---

Curious: if the Supreme Court intended this to be the outcome, why didn't they simply rule that way? They could have carved out exceptions like this from the jump. They didn't. Why then would they uphold any more challenges to state laws?

---

Because that issue was not before the supreme court and may not ever be now that Roe is gone.

Those issues will be addressed in the state legislatures and state courts, including, any claims that a women's rights under state or federal laws (and state constitutions) are violated. If there are federal claims - which will be harder if not impossible - the rational basis test will apply.

The link below goes state by state in discussing current and in some cases pending abortion laws.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/?itm_source=parsely-api

I didn't check every single state with restrictive laws. But based on a spot check, it appears that even the most restrictive laws allow for abortion for a mother's health (thought not always rape/incest) and in some cases limited other circumstances.

Beyond that, I think this article is a very good discussion.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/27/what-to-expect-in-a-post-roe-world/

Here is a key part:

"While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi's 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision."

______________

What does that tell me? That politicians on both sides are wildly out of step with main stream voters. Many red states are too restrictive on abortion; and many blue states are far too permissive (e.g., abortion through the 9th month). As others have posted, we got to that sad place precisely because, after Roe, the political system awarded the most extreme on each side. Roe mostly insulate them from the practical consequences of their extreme positions. Not anymore, though it will take time.

---

This does not answer my question. I asked why abortion restrictions in certain states would be struck down by the courts, given the recent Dobbs ruling.

I acknowledge that those laws could change thanks to voting and the political process. I don't understand the point about the courts.

---

The Dobbs decision basically said the law as enunciated by Roe and Casey was wrong, that they misinterpreted the Constitution and applied the wrong legal basis for assessing abortion restrictions. The only abortion restriction before the was Mississippi's 15 week rule. They announced the new standard/test (Rational Basis), applied it to the 15 week rule and decided it was allowed. All other state rules - existing and future - have to be assessed on the RB test themselves. IMO this is a mess and Robert's dissent looks better and better by the day.

---

Roberts dissent is garbage. He says the old test is wrong because viability isn't the real issue.

Quote:

---

Today, the Court nonetheless rules for Mississippi by do-
ing just that. I would take a more measured course. I agree
with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and
Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare de-
cisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abor-
tion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman's
right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right
should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable
opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further
certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi's law al-
lows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well be-
yond the point at which it is considered "late" to discover a
pregnancy. See A. Ayoola, Late Recognition of Unintended
Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (preg-
nancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six
weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning
the adequacy of that opportunity.

---

The reason I think it's garbage is that in practice women need time not just to discover pregnancy but to take action. Further, the deeper in pregnancy you go, the more you find out about the fetus, including fatal and non-fatal anomalies.

Beyond that, Mississippi literally has one abortion provider - the plaintiff in this case. 91% of the 600k women of reproductive age in MS live in counties without abortion providers.

I could have understood if this case was remanded with a multi-prong test to determine whether women in MS truly have reasonable access to reproductive care, including some form of termination, but rather than do that the court either lied or ignored what's really happening on the ground in MS. This is also true in many other states.

This is the sort of outcome you get when you have clerics rendering opinions, not prudent jurists interpreting the constitution.

---

Roberts probably cared that Roe was wrong but cared more about SCOTUS.

I do expect cases to come soon that call into question the very point you make. For example, how can Tx's 6 week (?) restriction pass even the RB test? A right that can't be exercised because a women can't yet know she's pregnant, can't access the healthcare in time (ie X number of providers), etc isn't a right at all and virtually by definition cannot be Rational. I appreciate skeptics see it differently but I have some faith it will eventually land somewhere much different than it seems today, though still not where it was pre-Dobbs

---

12 of the 17 judges in the 5th circuit were appointed by Trump, Dubya and Reagan (6 by Trump alone). Alito is the circuit justice.

Would you really be surprised if the Texas law is upheld by the 5th circuit and the court denies cert?

---

This is a question for Tequila and Unit2. On what basis would a plaintiff be in FEDERAL court to challenge a state law restricting, or for that matter banning, abortion? What gives the federal court jurisdiction? Maybe a gender or racial discrimination type of claim? I think most of those types of claims were adjudicated in the Roe era - maybe there's some re-litigation under rational basis, but I think not much.

I think the state courts will be the new litigation battleground. Claims based on state laws and/or state constitutions in particular. I expect to see a lot of plaintiff asserting that the applicable State's constitution has a right to privacy, etc.

And Unit2 - I agree that Robert's concurrence was absolute trash. He wanted to craft a political compromise that: (i) neither of the parties asked for and stated was unworkable; and (ii) represented the exact type of judicial activism he and the other conservatives have traditionally railed against (i.e., crafting a judicial standard out of thin air, as in the original Roe case).

---

I am not a practicing attorney so I may be over my skiis. But I believe it would be the Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment.

---

FWIW ACLU seems to agree federal litigation will be limited.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/roe-dobbs-aclu/

---

It may be beyond my capacity, but I do not understand that line of thinking. Mississippi had a state law saying 15 weeks. After reversing Roe and Casey SCOTUS evaluated that state law against the Rational Basis test. Perhaps pro Choice advocates think they have a better chance of success at the state level with assorted state Constitutions than they would with strict constructionist federal judges??? Personally, I'd prefer to be on the pro-choice side of a Rational Basis argument if the issues were lack of exceptions for rape/incest, health of the mother, abortions being made illegal at less than say 12 weeks, etc. And if I think I can win that argument a) I want that argument; and b) I'm happy to do it in federal court because it becomes binding on the whole jurisdiction.

tequila4kapp said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Courts will hear cases and eventually rule that restrictions like this or which restrict abortions before a woman can know she's pregnant, have time to process / make a decision and get scheduled all fail the Rational Basis test.

---

Curious: if the Supreme Court intended this to be the outcome, why didn't they simply rule that way? They could have carved out exceptions like this from the jump. They didn't. Why then would they uphold any more challenges to state laws?

---

Because that issue was not before the supreme court and may not ever be now that Roe is gone.

Those issues will be addressed in the state legislatures and state courts, including, any claims that a women's rights under state or federal laws (and state constitutions) are violated. If there are federal claims - which will be harder if not impossible - the rational basis test will apply.

The link below goes state by state in discussing current and in some cases pending abortion laws.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/?itm_source=parsely-api

I didn't check every single state with restrictive laws. But based on a spot check, it appears that even the most restrictive laws allow for abortion for a mother's health (thought not always rape/incest) and in some cases limited other circumstances.

Beyond that, I think this article is a very good discussion.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/27/what-to-expect-in-a-post-roe-world/

Here is a key part:

"While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi's 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision."

______________

What does that tell me? That politicians on both sides are wildly out of step with main stream voters. Many red states are too restrictive on abortion; and many blue states are far too permissive (e.g., abortion through the 9th month). As others have posted, we got to that sad place precisely because, after Roe, the political system awarded the most extreme on each side. Roe mostly insulate them from the practical consequences of their extreme positions. Not anymore, though it will take time.

---

This does not answer my question. I asked why abortion restrictions in certain states would be struck down by the courts, given the recent Dobbs ruling.

I acknowledge that those laws could change thanks to voting and the political process. I don't understand the point about the courts.

---

The Dobbs decision basically said the law as enunciated by Roe and Casey was wrong, that they misinterpreted the Constitution and applied the wrong legal basis for assessing abortion restrictions. The only abortion restriction before the was Mississippi's 15 week rule. They announced the new standard/test (Rational Basis), applied it to the 15 week rule and decided it was allowed. All other state rules - existing and future - have to be assessed on the RB test themselves. IMO this is a mess and Robert's dissent looks better and better by the day.

---

Roberts dissent is garbage. He says the old test is wrong because viability isn't the real issue.

Quote:

---

Today, the Court nonetheless rules for Mississippi by do-
ing just that. I would take a more measured course. I agree
with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and
Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare de-
cisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abor-
tion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman's
right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right
should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable
opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further
certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi's law al-
lows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well be-
yond the point at which it is considered "late" to discover a
pregnancy. See A. Ayoola, Late Recognition of Unintended
Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (preg-
nancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six
weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning
the adequacy of that opportunity.

---

The reason I think it's garbage is that in practice women need time not just to discover pregnancy but to take action. Further, the deeper in pregnancy you go, the more you find out about the fetus, including fatal and non-fatal anomalies.

Beyond that, Mississippi literally has one abortion provider - the plaintiff in this case. 91% of the 600k women of reproductive age in MS live in counties without abortion providers.

I could have understood if this case was remanded with a multi-prong test to determine whether women in MS truly have reasonable access to reproductive care, including some form of termination, but rather than do that the court either lied or ignored what's really happening on the ground in MS. This is also true in many other states.

This is the sort of outcome you get when you have clerics rendering opinions, not prudent jurists interpreting the constitution.

---

Roberts probably cared that Roe was wrong but cared more about SCOTUS.

I do expect cases to come soon that call into question the very point you make. For example, how can Tx's 6 week (?) restriction pass even the RB test? A right that can't be exercised because a women can't yet know she's pregnant, can't access the healthcare in time (ie X number of providers), etc isn't a right at all and virtually by definition cannot be Rational. I appreciate skeptics see it differently but I have some faith it will eventually land somewhere much different than it seems today, though still not where it was pre-Dobbs

---

12 of the 17 judges in the 5th circuit were appointed by Trump, Dubya and Reagan (6 by Trump alone). Alito is the circuit justice.

Would you really be surprised if the Texas law is upheld by the 5th circuit and the court denies cert?

---

This is a question for Tequila and Unit2. On what basis would a plaintiff be in FEDERAL court to challenge a state law restricting, or for that matter banning, abortion? What gives the federal court jurisdiction? Maybe a gender or racial discrimination type of claim? I think most of those types of claims were adjudicated in the Roe era - maybe there's some re-litigation under rational basis, but I think not much.

I think the state courts will be the new litigation battleground. Claims based on state laws and/or state constitutions in particular. I expect to see a lot of plaintiff asserting that the applicable State's constitution has a right to privacy, etc.

And Unit2 - I agree that Robert's concurrence was absolute trash. He wanted to craft a political compromise that: (i) neither of the parties asked for and stated was unworkable; and (ii) represented the exact type of judicial activism he and the other conservatives have traditionally railed against (i.e., crafting a judicial standard out of thin air, as in the original Roe case).

---

I am not a practicing attorney so I may be over my skiis. But I believe it would be the Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment.

---

FWIW ACLU seems to agree federal litigation will be limited.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/roe-dobbs-aclu/

---

It may be beyond my capacity, but I do not understand that line of thinking. Mississippi had a state law saying 15 weeks. After reversing Roe and Casey SCOTUS evaluated that state law against the Rational Basis test. Perhaps pro Choice advocates think they have a better chance of success at the state level with assorted state Constitutions than they would with strict constructionist federal judges??? Personally, I'd prefer to be on the pro-choice side of a Rational Basis argument if the issues were lack of restrictions or rape/incest, health of the mother, abortions being made illegal at less than say 12 weeks, etc. And if I think I can win that argument a) I want that argument; and b) I'm happy to do it in federal court because it becomes binding on the whole jurisdiction.

---

I'm not a litigation expert by any means, which is why I asked the question above. My thinking is that to get into federal court (absent diversity jurisdiction), you need to be seeking to enforce a federal statute or a federal/constitutional right. I could be wrong, but I don't believe you can go to court and simply assert that a state law fails the rational basis test.

Obviously, until this week, there was a constitutional right to abortion/privacy - but no more. So what federal rights could be implicated by a state abortion law? Maybe a liberty right if there are no exceptions for a women's health? Maybe discrimination against a protected class (disparate impact)? I think there will be some cases like that - not many. And most laws will pass the rational basis test. There are some scholars (including conservatives) who think the privileges and immunities clause might apply, but I think that ship has sailed.

I do expect a lot of litigation at the state level.

BearGoggles said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

sycasey said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

Courts will hear cases and eventually rule that restrictions like this or which restrict abortions before a woman can know she's pregnant, have time to process / make a decision and get scheduled all fail the Rational Basis test.

---

Curious: if the Supreme Court intended this to be the outcome, why didn't they simply rule that way? They could have carved out exceptions like this from the jump. They didn't. Why then would they uphold any more challenges to state laws?

---

Because that issue was not before the supreme court and may not ever be now that Roe is gone.

Those issues will be addressed in the state legislatures and state courts, including, any claims that a women's rights under state or federal laws (and state constitutions) are violated. If there are federal claims - which will be harder if not impossible - the rational basis test will apply.

The link below goes state by state in discussing current and in some cases pending abortion laws.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/?itm_source=parsely-api

I didn't check every single state with restrictive laws. But based on a spot check, it appears that even the most restrictive laws allow for abortion for a mother's health (thought not always rape/incest) and in some cases limited other circumstances.

Beyond that, I think this article is a very good discussion.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/06/27/what-to-expect-in-a-post-roe-world/

Here is a key part:

"While some Democrats are voicing absolute views of abortion, and some Republicans are calling for total bans, most Americans hold a more nuanced view.

In 1975, polling showed 54 percent supported abortion under some circumstances, with 21 percent saying it should be entirely legal; 22 percent said it should be illegal.

According to recent polling by the Pew Research Center, only 8 percent of adults say abortion should be illegal without exception, while just 19 percent say abortion should be legal in all cases, without exception. Yet, polls also show that 65 percent of Americans would make most abortions illegal in the second trimester, and 80 percent would make most abortions illegal in the third trimester.

These polls suggest that the majority of Americans will continue to live in states protecting abortion while citizens would support limits like the one in Mississippi. In Virginia, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) announced an effort to limit abortions to Mississippi's 15-week standard but expressed a willingness to compromise on that cutoff date. In other words, there may be room for compromise as states work out their own approaches to abortion.

Of course, none of the political or legal realities will likely penetrate the rage and rhetoric following the decision."

______________

What does that tell me? That politicians on both sides are wildly out of step with main stream voters. Many red states are too restrictive on abortion; and many blue states are far too permissive (e.g., abortion through the 9th month). As others have posted, we got to that sad place precisely because, after Roe, the political system awarded the most extreme on each side. Roe mostly insulate them from the practical consequences of their extreme positions. Not anymore, though it will take time.

---

This does not answer my question. I asked why abortion restrictions in certain states would be struck down by the courts, given the recent Dobbs ruling.

I acknowledge that those laws could change thanks to voting and the political process. I don't understand the point about the courts.

---

The Dobbs decision basically said the law as enunciated by Roe and Casey was wrong, that they misinterpreted the Constitution and applied the wrong legal basis for assessing abortion restrictions. The only abortion restriction before the was Mississippi's 15 week rule. They announced the new standard/test (Rational Basis), applied it to the 15 week rule and decided it was allowed. All other state rules - existing and future - have to be assessed on the RB test themselves. IMO this is a mess and Robert's dissent looks better and better by the day.

---

Roberts dissent is garbage. He says the old test is wrong because viability isn't the real issue.

Quote:

---

Today, the Court nonetheless rules for Mississippi by do-
ing just that. I would take a more measured course. I agree
with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and
Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare de-
cisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abor-
tion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman's
right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right
should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable
opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further
certainly not all the way to viability. Mississippi's law al-
lows a woman three months to obtain an abortion, well be-
yond the point at which it is considered "late" to discover a
pregnancy. See A. Ayoola, Late Recognition of Unintended
Pregnancies, 32 Pub. Health Nursing 462 (2015) (preg-
nancy is discoverable and ordinarily discovered by six
weeks of gestation). I see no sound basis for questioning
the adequacy of that opportunity.

---

The reason I think it's garbage is that in practice women need time not just to discover pregnancy but to take action. Further, the deeper in pregnancy you go, the more you find out about the fetus, including fatal and non-fatal anomalies.

Beyond that, Mississippi literally has one abortion provider - the plaintiff in this case. 91% of the 600k women of reproductive age in MS live in counties without abortion providers.

I could have understood if this case was remanded with a multi-prong test to determine whether women in MS truly have reasonable access to reproductive care, including some form of termination, but rather than do that the court either lied or ignored what's really happening on the ground in MS. This is also true in many other states.

This is the sort of outcome you get when you have clerics rendering opinions, not prudent jurists interpreting the constitution.

---

Roberts probably cared that Roe was wrong but cared more about SCOTUS.

I do expect cases to come soon that call into question the very point you make. For example, how can Tx's 6 week (?) restriction pass even the RB test? A right that can't be exercised because a women can't yet know she's pregnant, can't access the healthcare in time (ie X number of providers), etc isn't a right at all and virtually by definition cannot be Rational. I appreciate skeptics see it differently but I have some faith it will eventually land somewhere much different than it seems today, though still not where it was pre-Dobbs

---

12 of the 17 judges in the 5th circuit were appointed by Trump, Dubya and Reagan (6 by Trump alone). Alito is the circuit justice.

Would you really be surprised if the Texas law is upheld by the 5th circuit and the court denies cert?

---

This is a question for Tequila and Unit2. On what basis would a plaintiff be in FEDERAL court to challenge a state law restricting, or for that matter banning, abortion? What gives the federal court jurisdiction? Maybe a gender or racial discrimination type of claim? I think most of those types of claims were adjudicated in the Roe era - maybe there's some re-litigation under rational basis, but I think not much.

I think the state courts will be the new litigation battleground. Claims based on state laws and/or state constitutions in particular. I expect to see a lot of plaintiff asserting that the applicable State's constitution has a right to privacy, etc.

And Unit2 - I agree that Robert's concurrence was absolute trash. He wanted to craft a political compromise that: (i) neither of the parties asked for and stated was unworkable; and (ii) represented the exact type of judicial activism he and the other conservatives have traditionally railed against (i.e., crafting a judicial standard out of thin air, as in the original Roe case).

---

I am not a practicing attorney so I may be over my skiis. But I believe it would be the Incorporation Doctrine of the 14th Amendment.

---

FWIW ACLU seems to agree federal litigation will be limited.

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/roe-dobbs-aclu/

---

It may be beyond my capacity, but I do not understand that line of thinking. Mississippi had a state law saying 15 weeks. After reversing Roe and Casey SCOTUS evaluated that state law against the Rational Basis test. Perhaps pro Choice advocates think they have a better chance of success at the state level with assorted state Constitutions than they would with strict constructionist federal judges??? Personally, I'd prefer to be on the pro-choice side of a Rational Basis argument if the issues were lack of restrictions or rape/incest, health of the mother, abortions being made illegal at less than say 12 weeks, etc. And if I think I can win that argument a) I want that argument; and b) I'm happy to do it in federal court because it becomes binding on the whole jurisdiction.

---

I'm not a litigation expert by any means, which is why I asked the question above. My thinking is that to get into federal court (absent diversity jurisdiction), you need to be seeking to enforce a federal statute or a federal/constitutional right. I could be wrong, but I don't believe you can go to court and simply assert that a state law fails the rational basis test.

Obviously, until this week, there was a constitutional right to abortion/privacy - but no more. So what federal rights could be implicated by a state abortion law? Maybe a liberty right if there are no exceptions for a women's health? Maybe discrimination against a protected class (disparate impact)? I think there will be some cases like that - not many. And most laws will pass the rational basis test. There are some scholars (including conservatives) who think the privileges and immunities clause might apply, but I think that ship has sailed.

I do expect a lot of litigation at the state level.

---

Fair and good points. What I don't understand is this, if this is purely a state court function because there is no C right to an abortion why announce there is a federal standard (RB) at all and why apply it to Mississippi's 15 week state law?

I assume the answer is that someone files a lawsuit in federal court under FRCP 5.1 claiming the law is unconstitutional. In the old world, district courts agreed, circuit courts agreed and SCOTUS would deny cert. In the most recent world, the first few things happened but the court granted cert and allowed the law. In the new world, I expect that people will challenge these new laws, most district courts will grant summary judgment or otherwise rule in favor of the states (defendants) and that most circuit courts will as well. SCOTUS will probably deny cert (at least I think this version of SCOTUS will). If a circuit court rejects a law, then the radical clerics are far more likely to grant cert and make a new more detailed ruling. Rinse, repeat for years.

I don't think anything has changed from a civil procedure standpoint. State laws still can't violate the constitution because the 14th amendment privileges and immunities clause still exists.

All that said, like the rest of the group here, I'm obviously not a litigator and just spitballing. I think the big thing that's changed is the presumption that restrictive laws will get rejected. Now, I assume they will generally be upheld and SCOTUS won't grant cert on an upheld law.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

I assume the answer is that someone files a lawsuit in federal court under FRCP 5.1 claiming the law is unconstitutional. In the old world, district courts agreed, circuit courts agreed and SCOTUS would deny cert. In the most recent world, the first few things happened but the court granted cert and allowed the law. In the new world, I expect that people will challenge these new laws, most district courts will grant summary judgment or otherwise rule in favor of the states (defendants) and that most circuit courts will as well. SCOTUS will probably deny cert (at least I think this version of SCOTUS will). If a circuit court rejects a law, then the radical clerics are far more likely to grant cert and make a new more detailed ruling. Rinse, repeat for years.

I don't think anything has changed from a civil procedure standpoint. State laws still can't violate the constitution because the 14th amendment privileges and immunities clause still exists.

All that said, like the rest of the group here, I'm obviously not a litigator and just spitballing. I think the big thing that's changed is the presumption that restrictive laws will get rejected. Now, I assume they will generally be upheld and SCOTUS won't grant cert on an upheld law.

---

I think this is spot on. The SC wants the federal courts to be out of the abortion case business.

The only thing I will add is that I think many states (and specifically state supreme courts) will find the right to privacy/abortion in their state constitutions. The states are free to enact and interpret their constitutions however they see fit. NARAL, the ACLU, etc., should and will be all over that and I expect they'll have some success.

Unit2Sucks said:

---

Too many democrats wanted to believe that the bought and paid for clerics on the supreme court wouldn't overturn RvW. Now too many want to believe that the GOP doesn't want to go after gay marriage, contraception and doesn't really want to turn us into a Christian Sharia ****hole country.

Maybe we should start listening to what the GOP is actually saying they want.

NEW: All 5 Republican candidates for Michigan Governor just indicated at a debate they want the Supreme Court to go after same-sex marriage next now that Roe is overturned.

— No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen (@NoLieWithBTC) July 1, 2022

---

…and probably a surprising percentage of those RWNJs are closeted gays like ex Sen. Larry Craig.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3544588-10-year-old-girl-denied-abortion-in-ohio/

Next up: voting rights, as US supreme court set to tear up more protections


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/03/voting-rights-us-supreme-court?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/07/08/politics/what-is-in-biden-abortion-executive-order/index.html

Many positives here

Pete Buttigieg just gave a masterclass on owning the conversation on Fox News. pic.twitter.com/u1lO5NVYkI

— MeidasTouch.com (@MeidasTouch) July 10, 2022