Biden says right to choose 'fundamental' after leaked document suggests US could allow abortion ban.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Biden says right to choose 'fundamental' after leaked document suggests US could allow abortion ban.

President Joe Biden has said "a woman's right to choose is fundamental", after a leaked draft opinion suggesting the US Supreme Court could be about to overturn a landmark abortion case emerged.

Mr Biden went on to say the "basic fairness and the stability of our law" demanded the court did not overturn the 1973 Roe vs Wade case, which legalised abortion nationwide, adding the White House would work to codify the right to abortion into federal law.

In a statement released a day after Politico released the draft suggesting the high court could be poised to overturn the ruling, Biden said he couldn't speak to the authenticity of the draft and said his administration is preparing for all eventualities for when the court ultimately rules.

“If the Court does overturn Roe, it will fall on our nation’s elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman’s right to choose,” Biden said, adding "it will fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this November".

"We will need more pro-choice Senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe, which I will work to pass and sign into law", he continued.

A decision to overrule Roe vs Wade would lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states and could have huge ramifications for this year’s congressional elections.

Roe vs Wade gave women in the US an absolute right to an abortion in the first three months of pregnancy - and limited rights in the second trimester.

But it remains unclear if the draft represents the court’s final word – opinions often change in the drafting process.

Whatever the outcome, the report published by Politico, marks an extremely rare breach of the court’s secretive deliberation process.

US Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday ordered an investigation into the leaking of the draft, which he called an "egregious breach of trust."

In the high court's first public comment since the draft was published, Chief Justice Roberts confirmed its authenticity but said "it does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

He added: “I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.”

Could the US ban legal abortions and what is the Roe vs Wade case?

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start," the draft opinion states.

It was signed by Justice Samuel Alito, a member of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority who was appointed by former President George W Bush.

The document was labelled a “1st Draft” of the “Opinion of the Court” in a case challenging Mississippi’s ban on abortion after 15 weeks, a case known as Dobbs vs Jackson Women’s Health Organisation.

The court is expected to rule on the case before its term ends in late June or early July.

The draft opinion in effect states there is no constitutional right to abortion services and would allow individual states to more heavily regulate or outright ban the procedure.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled", it states, referencing the 1992 case Planned Parenthood vs Casey that affirmed Roe’s finding of a constitutional right to abortion services but allowed states to place some constraints on the practice.

“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives".

A Supreme Court spokeswoman said the court had no comment on the document, which dates from February.

[Solauren]

So, the Supreme Court might be considering overturning the ruling that allows abortions nationwide.
(If the document is legitimate)

And the POTUS goes - if that happens, we'll work to make it legal again.

Good for him.

Personal Note: Since we don't have the technology for alternatives to abortion for an unwanted pregnancy, I'd rather leave the option on the table.
We get medical technology that makes transplanting a fetus viable, my opinion may change.

[Mr Bean]

So, the Supreme Court might be considering overturning the ruling that allows abortions nationwide.
(If the document is legitimate)

And the POTUS goes - if that happens, we'll work to make it legal again.

Good for him.

Personal Note: Since we don't have the technology for alternatives to abortion for an unwanted pregnancy, I'd rather leave the option on the table.
We get medical technology that makes transplanting a fetus viable, my opinion may change.

If the Supreme Court Bans it he needs 61 senators to change the law and 67 to get an amendment to the constitution passed. And it's authentic the only question was it a clerk who leaked it or another Supreme Court justice who leaked it. Abortion will be overturned and because of holding laws instantly banned in 20 states. There are 5 hard core conservative justices in the Supreme Court and that's all you need.

[Gandalf]

So now what?

If the US is now divided into states where women control their bodies, and those where they are breeding stock, will more states start having those weird Texas bounty laws to stop women going to better states for abortions?

Who will turn out in November?

[Tribble]

No doubt when Republicans take over congress they will try for a federal ban nation wide.

Also, assuming this draft is legitimate and is more or less what is issued, the next target will likely be the LGBT community. I fully expect that this case will be used as precedent by conservative states and/or next conservative congress to try to recriminalize homosexuality, or at least ban gay marriage. As this court has made it clear that doesn’t care about precedents it disagrees with, I wouldn’t be surprised if both were upheld.

[Solauren]

In otherwords, we can't kill you cause it will look bad, so we're going to drive you out with crappy laws....

[Tribble]

In otherwords, we can't kill you cause it will look bad, so we're going to drive you out with crappy laws....

… For now at least. I’m sure the “we can kill you because it looks good to our supporters” comes later.

[Ralin]

And the POTUS goes - if that happens, we'll work to make it legal again.

Good for him.

If he and the Democrats had any intention of doing that they would have long since passed actual federal law making abortion legal nationwide independent of what the Supreme Court says.

[Solauren]

And the POTUS goes - if that happens, we'll work to make it legal again.

Good for him.

If he and the Democrats had any intention of doing that they would have long since passed actual federal law making abortion legal nationwide independent of what the Supreme Court says.

I prefer it's more of the mentality of 'if it's working, don't replace/upgrade it', combined with 'we have things working the way we want at the moment, why turn it into a fight until we need to'.

[Gandalf]

That's a fancy way to say complacency, considering the Republicans have been talking about replacing Roe for decades.

Trump was lucky enough to replace three judges, and look what happened. He may go down in conservative history as the president who got Roe repealed.

[Ralin]

I prefer it's more of the mentality of 'if it's working, don't replace/upgrade it', combined with 'we have things working the way we want at the moment, why turn it into a fight until we need to'.

That's stupid and irresponsible and the current situation proves it.

'we have things working the way we want at the moment, why turn it into a fight until we need to'.

The very obvious decades-long right-wing plan to do exactly this. That's why.

[madd0c0t0r2]

I prefer it's more of the mentality of 'if it's working, don't replace/upgrade it', combined with 'we have things working the way we want at the moment, why turn it into a fight until we need to'.

That's stupid and irresponsible and the current situation proves it.

'we have things working the way we want at the moment, why turn it into a fight until we need to'.

The very obvious decades-long right-wing plan to do exactly this. That's why.

Yes. The very obvious decades long plan they've been putting effort and political capital into. When you make it law than they turn their attention and effort to getting that law repealed, and I think that's probably easier than swaying the supreme court. This fight was coming, but it's had a few decades (a generation) of working.

[Solauren]

And with it working for a generation, the Democracts now have a generation (or more) of voters that accept that this is how things should be, and will hopefully vote that way if it gets to the polls.

[Majin Gojira]

In otherwords, we can't kill you cause it will look bad, so we're going to drive you out with crappy laws....

… For now at least. I’m sure the “we can kill you because it looks good to our supporters” comes later.

I'd call it "We'll kill you indirectly for now, until it's legal to do so directly."

[LadyTevar]

And the POTUS goes - if that happens, we'll work to make it legal again.

Good for him.

If he and the Democrats had any intention of doing that they would have long since passed actual federal law making abortion legal nationwide independent of what the Supreme Court says.

I prefer it's more of the mentality of 'if it's working, don't replace/upgrade it', combined with 'we have things working the way we want at the moment, why turn it into a fight until we need to'.

THIS. Why push on a topic that's sensitive when you have something that is working.
But now it's not working and we need the Dems to actually DO SOMETHING.

[Solauren]

And hopefully, now that they have a generation or two that accepted this as a fundamental fact/right, they'll get the support to have it put into place that can't be easily overturned, and the level of support will show those opposed it's not a fight they can win.

[Gandalf]

THIS. Why push on a topic that's sensitive when you have something that is working.

Because as we've seen, it was working but needlessly fragile. A protection this essential is no good if it can be overturned by one presidential term worth of judicial appointments.

Had the Democrats picked a moment in the past half century or so to show some leadership and better enshrine protections, they may even have been able to forestall some of the other anti-abortion laws out there. But I guess it was easier to just go "We have Roe!" than show any real leadership.

When people point to the inherent uselessness of Democrats as a party, this will now become a pretty big exhibit.

[Crazedwraith]

I'm not up on the US system I admit, but if they can strike down Roe Vs Wade, can't they declare any law about the same thing unconstitutional as well?

[Ralin]

I'm not up on the US system I admit, but if they can strike down Roe Vs Wade, can't they declare any law about the same thing unconstitutional as well?

Roe vs Wade held that the US Constitution implies that abortion MUST be legal everywhere in America. If the US Constition does not guarantee the right to get an abortion that doesn't mean Congress can't pass laws saying that abortions are legal.

Of course, the Supreme Court could theoretically hear a case about traffic tickets and rule that henceforth all elections are suspended, the Chief Justice is the new king of America and that all dissenters are exiled to Canada if a majority of the court so chose. But American politics aren't at that level of crazy. Yet.

[Formless]

That depends. If they strike down Roe for being unsupported by the Constitution, it wouldn't prevent congress from passing a law that provides protections based on privacy or otherwise; if they strike down privacy as unconstitutional entirely, then they've just ruled HIPPA unconstitutional as well. I'm pretty sure they aren't going to go that route because if they try it, they'll just have another lawsuit (or more likely dozens upon dozens of them) on their hands as quickly as someone can put it on the docket. Indeed, even claiming that privacy isn't guaranteed by the Constitution is already running headfirst into the clause in the Bill of Rights which specifically claims that rights not specifically mentioned here are nevertheless protected. That is, the Bill of Rights SPECIFICALLY SAYS that it is not an exhaustive list of all rights a citizen has, and others are mentioned elsewhere in the Constitution. Lots of Supreme Court rulings in the past have relied on that to say that yes, this isn't a specifically mentioned right, but its still a right nevertheless. Moreover, there are other places in the Constitution that mention a citizen's rights which aren't in the Bill of Rights. Copyright, for instance, is mentioned elsewhere. Based on that fact, one could challenge their interpretation that privacy is not a right by pointing to the Unwarranted Search and Seizure prohibition as directly indicating a right to privacy under the Constitution!

HOWEVER, even if they rule that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy, Congress can always add that right to the Constitution via an Amendment, and by definition (and according according to the Separation of Powers clause in the Constitution), the Supreme Court can't strike down an Amendment to the Constitution as unconstitutional. The only problem with that rout is that amending the Constitution is so fucking hard. It shouldn't be so difficult, but the founders of this country weren't fortune tellers, and had no idea that their experimental government document had such a flaw. Indeed, at least some of them seemed to be under the impression that Constitutional Conventions might be the norm in the future, since there are provisions in the constitution for starting one. In over two centuries, it has been trotted out occasionally as a means of forcing Congress to get off its ass and pass an Amendment, but its never actually been tried.

[Formless]

Of course, the Supreme Court could theoretically hear a case about traffic tickets and rule that henceforth all elections are suspended, the Chief Justice is the new king of America and that all dissenters are exiled to Canada if a majority of the court so chose. But American politics aren't at that level of crazy. Yet.

If they were stupid enough to try that, they would run right into the problem Andrew Jackson highlighted with the Court's powers: you want to make this ruling law? Then you can enforce it.

Or as I believe he actually put it, "you and what army?"

[Formless]

Oh, and watching a legaleagle short reminded me that in theory, Congress can impeach Supreme Court Justices. Its never happened before, however. And as we've seen with attempts to impeach the President, its not the effective tool for punishing bad behavior or corruption in government that the Founders expected it would be.

[Ralin]

If they were stupid enough to try that, they would run right into the problem Andrew Jackson highlighted with the Court's powers: you want to make this ruling law? Then you can enforce it.

Or as I believe he actually put it, "you and what army?"

I've always figured that was one of the implicit balances on the Supreme Court's power, even if it's never described as such.

[Khaat]

If the US is now divided into states where women control their bodies, and those where they are breeding stock, will more states start having those weird Texas bounty laws to stop women going to better states for abortions?

The term you're looking for is "fugitive slave laws".

[Tsyroc]

I've seen some stuff saying that this was leaked to give the Democrats something to motivate its voters going into the midterm election. I can see that as a legit possibility.

As far as Roe v Wade it has long been attacked as being bad law and clear judicial legislating from the bench by Thurgood Marshall. That's probably true. I also think that, whatever people think, not having abortion legal at least at a certain minimal level in every state is a very bad thing. You can be against the concept of abortion but women are going to be getting them regardless, sometimes for medical reasons. Would you rather have them and the baby die because they had to go the "back alley" route. If you do you are a bigger piece of shit than you think a woman "killing an unborn baby" is and deserve punishment in the worst part of ass pounding Hell that you believe in.

One benefit of this is that it might help some states level off their state legislatures so they aren't so right wing extreme. I don't know what needs to happen in some super "blue" state to get them to balance out a bit but I think we could all benefit from not being so one sided.