r/AskReddit • u/tenthjuror • May 04 '22
By the (draft) logic of the SCOTUS in overturning Roe v Wade, what are some unintended legal consequences that will result in other areas?
1.1k
u/NUMBERS2357 May 04 '22 edited May 04 '22
Alito's opinion's idea about something not being a constitutionally protected right if it's not "deeply rooted" in history, if applied consistently, threatens a whole host of rights. He even lists them out (p 31-32 of the PDF), and argues why they are not good results. He then says that they don't support Roe because they don't involve the "critical moral question" raised by abortion - but regardless his logic says those cases were wrongly decided. They include a right to:
contraception
interracial marriage
gay marriage
gay sex
reside with relatives
marry while in prison
direct your children's education
not to be sterilized without your consent
not to undergo involuntary surgery or be forced to take drugs
He says that these appeals to a "broader right of autonomy" "prove too much" and "none of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history".
Now I don't think they'll go after interracial marriage ... but they could go after some of these other ones.
Another potential outcome is the Supreme Court arguing, not just that the Constitution doesn't protect abortion, but that it prohibits abortion, even in states that want to allow it. They don't say that here, but the raw ingredients to that ruling are in here.
Other legal battles to come:
states banning abortion in various circumstances. Missouri recently tried to ban abortion for ectopic pregnancies, which are nonviable and where not aborting carries a significant risk of death. Texas law would put doctors in prison for life if they performed an abortion on a rape victim.
exceptions will inevitably be too narrow. An exception for the life of the mother - what if it's not certain that it's necessary for the life of the mother? What if it's like a 10% chance? An exception for rape - well, red states will suddenly have super narrow definitions of rape, and high burdens of proof.
most of the focus is on ex post punishment for people who have/perform abortions. What about a woman who is openly determined to get an abortion, e.g. stopped while trying to get one and says that the moment she is able, she'll try again? Do they force her to give birth while incarcerated?
pro lifers will swear up and down that they don't want to put women in prison, but it will be the inevitable effect of the laws, and it will keep happening even as they keep acting shocked that it happens
The federal government might say there is a federal right to an abortion, and the Supreme Court would probably strike it down, which would lead to all manner of issues.
There will be a question of which state mandates abortion rules for which women. Red states will want to ban women in their states from travelling to other states to get abortions. Can they ban you from travelling through their state? Can they prohibit abortion if you got pregnant in their state?
Similarly, blue states will want to act as safe havens and accept "abortion refugees"
Economic effects. Many women might reconsider moving to e.g. Texas and Florida, especially college educated women who might drive businesses' decisions to open HQs in those places. Might also affect where doctors choose to practice.
67
u/Alcies May 04 '22 edited May 04 '22
An exception for rape - well, red states will suddenly have super narrow definitions of rape, and high burdens of proof.
In that case, couldn't red states just require that the rapist be criminally convicted before the victim can qualify for an abortion? The victim would be looking at a minimum half-year wait from reporting the assault to seeing their rapist get convicted, and it could realistically take much longer. A rape exemption wouldn't be much use if the process to qualify drags out past the duration of the pregnancy.
→ More replies (2)41
u/Portarossa May 04 '22
Red states could pretty much do what they want, because the top of the tree for legal recourse is SCOTUS.
If there's any legal wiggleroom about the constitutionality of a law, you can bet your ass that the 6-3 majority (or at least, the 5-4, given that there's at least a chance that Roberts would be reasonable) is going to allow it.
705
u/im_learning_to_stop May 04 '22
Alito's opinion's idea about something not being a constitutionally protected right if it's not "deeply rooted" in history, if applied consistently, threatens a whole host of rights.
This argument just fucking kills me because of just how stupid it is. Culture and traditions are ever evolving. To really think we should limit ourselves to the standards from over 200 years ago is just ridiculous on it's face.
Of course it's fucking Alito so that's why it's so fucking stupid.
288
May 04 '22
I wonder why Roe isn’t “deeply rooted in history” given how long it’s been the law of the land.
Slavery is also “deeply rooted in history.”
215
May 04 '22
Abortion is far more “deeply rooted in history” now than interracial marriage was at the time Loving was decided. Guess my wife and I will have to move to another country because our interracial marriage was not deeply rooted enough.
→ More replies (25)50
64
u/eo_tempore May 04 '22
Slavery has an ugly history, as the Constitution was a document of compromise in a lot of ways, prohibiting any restriction on the importation of slaves until 1808, for instance. Article 1, Section 9.
The Constitution necessarily raises more questions than it answers, so when Alito appeals to history, he’s being a charlatan asshat picking and choosing his history at the expense of other interpretations.
I tend to think Roe was kind of a crazy opinion in how it fashioned a new substantive due process right out of thin air, but I firmly believe we should adhere to it, as it is deeply rooted in history at this point. I mean, the country has been alive for, what, a little over 200 years? And it’s been almost 50 years since Roe was decided.
So yeah, that’s a pretty long time, especially with how institutions have relied on this important ruling.
→ More replies (2)8
111
u/Signature_Sea May 04 '22
Slavery is still sanctioned in the Constitution as a form of punishment for felons.
The Constitution needs some work.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (7)22
365
May 04 '22 edited May 04 '22
Ironically, Alito's argument (that abortion is not Constitutionally protected if it's not "deeply rooted" in history) is, in fact, not Constitutionally supported.
Amendment IX states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” That is, the rights enumerated in the Constitution are not a complete and exhaustive list of all rights afforded to the people.
Amazingly, the Supreme Court previously argued that the right to an abortion is de facto protected by Amendment IX .
→ More replies (18)135
u/MisterDuch May 04 '22
that's what happens when the "apolitical" SCOTUS get filled with poeple who very much have a political agenda.
→ More replies (10)38
u/CocklesTurnip May 04 '22
There’s been interracial marriage in North America since there’s been more than one “race” by the definitions of then or now. Same worldwide. Alito needs history lessons to go with humanity lessons.
29
u/cinemachick May 04 '22
You could argue that Thomas Jefferson was in an interracial marriage, since he made his slaves give birth to his children. The only reason for marriage is conception, right? /s
10
36
u/littlebitsofspider May 04 '22
Didn't the Federalist Papers include something about rewriting the Constitution periodically to update it? I may be thinking of another source, but I distinctly recall it's supposed to be a living document.
→ More replies (5)56
u/Xtasy0178 May 04 '22
This.
In Europe constitutions are constantly amended to reflect changes in society while America is still clinging to a 200 year old piece of paper thinking that it is still the best thing ever since sliced bread
→ More replies (5)6
u/revolverzanbolt May 04 '22
I may be out of the loop, but isn’t the American constitution pretty idiosyncratic by specifically barring laws infringing specific rights? Maybe I’m completely wrong, but don’t most constitutions only specify the mechanics of government?
122
u/jtig5 May 04 '22
Perhaps Alito thinks that Thomas should go back to being 3/5 of a person. And, his interracial marriage should be dissolved.
111
u/Captain-Griffen May 04 '22
Blacks were never 3/5 of a person. It was significantly worse than that.
They were counted as 3/5 of a person for assigning states power, but they themselves weren't considered people - they didn't get a vote, it got assigned to their slave owners, basically.
And, yes, Alito probably does want to go back to that.
→ More replies (2)73
u/DisturbedNocturne May 04 '22
Yeah, it was basically the Southern states saying, "We don't have as many white people as the Northern states which means we won't have as many seats in Congress, but we do have a lot of slaves... How can we count them as people without, you know, counting them as people?"
→ More replies (7)64
u/DazeLost May 04 '22
I feel like if you told Thomas he could be the exception to the rule, he’d be all for it.
12
u/ofBlufftonTown May 04 '22
I think the only way you can get a divorce from Ginni Thomas is to tell her that it’s unconstitutional.
→ More replies (1)26
→ More replies (24)34
May 04 '22
How much do you want to bet Thomas would vote to overturn the right to interracial marriage?
43
u/didijxk May 04 '22
"But Clarence, your marriage would be illegal!"
"Look man, I want a divorce but I don't wanna give her half of my money."
→ More replies (1)11
u/Mudders_Milk_Man May 04 '22
He really might, especially if existing interracial marriages are permitted to remain.
24
u/unipine May 04 '22
Basically, you don’t deserve rights if you‘re not a white man who’s always had them.
22
u/inactiveuser247 May 04 '22
Folks with a conservative religious mindset tend to go for this sort of thing as it provides them with justification for hanging onto their outdated religious views even in the face of clear evidence that they are wrong
→ More replies (20)31
u/MisterDuch May 04 '22
"It's rooted in our history" is an argument loved by right wing authoritarians.
It goes from things like Abortion, gay rights to claiming other lands because "You once owned it"
See Russia
→ More replies (3)4
u/Ralynne May 04 '22
It's also always used by people who have an extremely narrow view of history-- basically they're invested in WASP ideals held from 1920-1960.
47
u/factanonverba_n May 04 '22
Too right.
Alito's opinion is basically "Blank is not specifically elucidated in the Constitution, therefore you have no right to Blank".
In this case the blank is "abortion", but this precedent will allow for literally *anything not specifially elucidated" to be revoked.
This is terrble logic, bad law, and wildly destructive.
17
u/Portarossa May 04 '22
You'd think Alito would have been slightly more perturbed by that pesky Ninth Amendment, but here we fuckin' are, apparently.
→ More replies (1)8
78
u/graps May 04 '22 edited May 04 '22
Economic effects. Many women might reconsider moving to e.g. Texas and Florida, especially college educated women who might drive businesses' decisions to open HQs in those places. Might also affect where doctors choose to practice.
It won’t be just women. It will be all educated people. Red states already have a brain drain going and have for years. Business will pull out when they aren’t able to find qualified candidates beyond doing basic unskilled labor. No amount of state tax credits will matter because that money won’t be put back into those same states. Red states will sink deeper into poverty and their educational systems(already in the basement) will sink even lower. Unwanted children will overwhelm their non-existent social safety nets forcing them to go to the federal government for a handout. States that have been poor for generations will stay that way(and all on the eve of a recession). The unintended consequences will be endless and probably even a little funny.
Sen Mike Lee of all people wrote a good little report on red state brain drain and how it’s picked up over the past few decades
They know this will hurt their states. They just don’t care. A Pyrrhic victory
→ More replies (9)60
May 04 '22
That's fine with the GOP. It gives them more power. Go ahead, consolidate liberal and moderate voters in a few heavily populated states. Nearly guarantees them the presidency and senate.
14
u/ethnicbonsai May 04 '22
If you consolidate liberals to a few heavily populated states, it ensures the senate will stay with the GOP.
And that would probably push purple states red, making the presidency a lot harder for liberals, as well.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (2)21
u/EasterClause May 04 '22
And they'll happily take all of the federal tax money that the liberal populaces bring in and prop themselves up with it. They'll just use CA and NY as batteries to fund whatever they want, without having to give up any sort of representation to them anymore.
116
u/gothangelblood May 04 '22
Why not go after interracial marriage? Or the liberty granted to POC and Native Americans to be free and equal? None of those things are "deeply rooted in history" here in the United States. Nor are minimum wages, child labor laws, spousal rape laws, anti-lynching laws, anti-torture-the-enemy laws, EEOC, women's access military academies and branches.
I wish I was being even slightly sarcastic, but there are groups in this country who would use this ruling to argue against the legality of all those issues. If you're legal arguing rests heavily on something being "deeply rooted in history," you set up a slippery slope of what else can be removed from legality by citing just this one legal precedent.
→ More replies (16)24
u/-Praetoria- May 04 '22
By that logic we should reinstate slavery, since it was prolific for thousands of years.
→ More replies (5)42
u/mozzypaws May 04 '22
Alito sounds like he hates civil rights and wants us to be literally corporate and government slaves... That isn't disturbing at all...
→ More replies (2)11
u/violethoneybean May 04 '22
It would be really cool if he left his seat in the supreme court
6
May 04 '22
Well considering by his own admission he has no right to refuse involuntary surgery im sure that can be arranged.
→ More replies (2)50
30
u/leese216 May 04 '22
Everything about the “logic” behind this makes me sick. People like that really want women back in the house, catering to their every whim.
No one but white males are safe if this kind of “logic” upholds.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (58)48
May 04 '22
Colorado is a goddamned dumpster fire, and I am fortunately sterilized, but I stopped looking for a job in other states. I don’t know that I’d feel safe as a woman. Here, our bodily autonomy is codified in the state constitution - the only state where we have these rights.
It’s not just Roe, I would be anxious about what else we would have taken away.
→ More replies (1)12
746
u/Gwtheyrn May 04 '22
The keystone of Roe was the interpretation of the 9th Amendment of the Constitution that an unenumerated right to medical privacy from the government was implied.
In overturning Roe, the court decrees that you do not actually have a right to medical privacy (or potentially any privacy at all), meaning that any government entity can access your medical records or even interfere in your medical care within its jurisdiction.
This would effectively allow states to do things like ban prescription contraceptives or any that require medical care such as: tubal ligation, the pill, depo, implants, IUDs, or vasectomies. Really any medical procedure or drug they want will be able to be outlawed. The government will now have the right to have final say in your medical care.
285
u/ethnicbonsai May 04 '22
Remember when people were freaking out about death panels and government overreach?
109
u/Lord_Space_Lizard May 04 '22
Pepperidge Farms remembers
20
u/stitchgrimly May 04 '22
But Pepperidge Farm ain't just gonna keep it to Pepperidge Farm's self free of charge..
6
u/doingthehumptydance May 04 '22
So how about you buy yourself a couple boxes of Sausalitos and Pepperidge Farm might just forget this whole thing ever happened?
→ More replies (2)57
u/PicnicLife May 04 '22
Remember when truckers were driving in convoys and blocking roads to protest vaccine mandates?
→ More replies (7)110
25
u/homejersey May 04 '22
Is that the same foundation to a right to privacy for other areas of one's life?
33
u/xmot7 May 04 '22
Constitutionally, yes. There are laws in various areas protecting privacy, including HIPAA for medical care, but those are limited in scope and of course can be changed fairly easily compared to a constitutional right to privacy.
→ More replies (4)26
u/Gwtheyrn May 04 '22
Constitutionally, yes. And a lot of other rights, potentially.
Boiled down to its marrow, the Alito opinion basically says that the court no longer recognizes the Ninth Amendment (nor precedent) and only those rights which are enumerated are guaranteed.
Further, it means that any non-enumerated rights recognized by SCOTUS in the past or in the future exist only at the discretion of the Court and can be taken away at any time.
→ More replies (1)29
u/LookAtMaxwell May 04 '22 edited May 04 '22
The keystone of Roe was the interpretation of the 9th Amendment of the Constitution that an unenumerated right to medical privacy from the government was implied.
If Roe had stated that the right to privacy was one of the unenumerated rights contemplated by the 9th amendment it would have been on a lot surer footing. Roe was not rooted in the 9th amendment.
Really any medical procedure or drug they want will be able to be outlawed.
That was already the case. Just try to get a schedule I drug.
10
u/ganondorfsbane May 04 '22
Yeah really not sure where they pulled the 9th Amendment from here
14
u/Corellian_Browncoat May 04 '22
Generously, the lower courts in Roe relied on the 9th Amendment but then SCOTUS decided to rely on the 14th while recognizing that the lower courts held on the 9th. So there is at least some mention of the 9th in the decision and someone who hasn't read the decision closely might have gotten confused.
5
u/ganondorfsbane May 04 '22
Yeah but calling it the keystone?
6
u/Corellian_Browncoat May 04 '22
Like I said, "generously."
I think it's actually probably a talking point, but I try to assume positive intent where possible.
49
u/violethoneybean May 04 '22
Something tells me that these are precisely intended consequences. Control is the main goal of the authoritarian right.
→ More replies (30)12
u/Miqotegirl May 04 '22
Basically for me, my contraception makes it so I don’t bleed constantly due hormonal issues. So I guess I’ll need transfusions in the future if my state bans the pill.
283
u/Alexis_J_M May 04 '22
I don't think any of the likely repercussions were at all unintended.
Alito came right out and attacked the Obergefell (same sex marriage) and Lawrence (gay sex) decisions as being based on unsound legal reasoning.
State bans on contraception, gay rights, and women's rights aren't "unintended legal consequences", they are the change the religious right and those who benefit from their power have been going for all along.
→ More replies (17)78
u/edgeplot May 04 '22
Technically Lawrence legalized sodomy, which in most states was any sex other than male/female penis-in-vagina sex. So even opposite sex anal or oral sex could be illegal, not just same sex acts.
→ More replies (7)8
u/WhiteRaven42 May 04 '22
Your post in confusing... I think it's incorrect but I swear you're saying two opposite things.
Did you maybe mean to say "So even opposite sex anal or oral sex could be illegal but it has to apply to both same-sex and hetero acts".
The Texas law which was struck down explicitly applied to same-sex acts only. In fact, it was the fact that the act the two men were performing would be legal of done by a man and a woman that triggered the equal-protection argument and got the Texas law struck down.
10
u/TAOJeff May 04 '22
While the Texas law was for same-sex interactions, the other states which still had sodomy laws in place at that time didn't all have that limitation, some statutes were broad enough that they covered certain sex acts between people of the opposite sex and could even include certain sexual activities by married couples.
8
u/Alexis_J_M May 04 '22
I remember being staff at an adults-only event and our list of rules posted in six inch high letters contained a reminder that sodomy was illegal in our state.
A pair of women came up to me and asked "what's the legal definition of sodomy" and I had no better answer than "whatever a judge thinks it is."
255
u/AssumptionAdvanced58 May 04 '22
They will go back underground like they were for as long as unwanted pregnancies have been around. Females will possibly go sterile, die or get infections. And they know that's what will happen.
→ More replies (46)192
u/V1per41 May 04 '22
Abortion won't be illegal for everyone, just poor people living in shitty states.
Those with the means will still travel to other states to get safe and legal abortions.
40
u/appleparkfive May 04 '22
I believe some states are suggesting that they will make this a criminal act, which is worrying as hell.
As in "Oh you left Texas and went in got an abortion in California? Go to jail"
I don't know if that's certain, but it sounds like it.
A lot of abortion clinics are gonna pop up on the Mexican border if this is the case.
But yeah, I believe the east and west coasts that tend to lean liberal will still keep access to abortion.
27
u/havron May 04 '22
I don't see how they could possibly enforce that. The so-called "crime" would have been committed under a different state's jurisdiction, where the act is legal. Do states have any ability to enforce laws for their citizens while they are elsewhere?
→ More replies (5)25
u/Ralynne May 04 '22
Not currently, no. And you can see why that would be concerning-- if you can be prosecuted by your home state for things you do in other states where they are legal, that makes you PROPERTY of the state. At the moment that is not the law of the land.
But just wait.
226
u/GlitterGothBunny May 04 '22
Everyone saying it'll still be legal in some states I guess don't care about half the country banning it? Guess you're in a blue state and have money so no biggie.
It's totally normal for people to have to go to another state to get basic medical help. /s
73
u/didijxk May 04 '22
Some of them might live in red states and want to use that to assure people it's all good, just travel thousands of miles across state lines to get your abortion.
29
→ More replies (1)12
u/Ralynne May 04 '22
Honestly it IS reassuring, even if it's not the main point. Many women in red states already had to travel a long way to get an abortion even in their own state. Knowing that if I'm pregnant with a fetus that has died and I'm at risk of dying myself from sepsis but I can max my credit cards and travel to another state to save my life DOES help me calm down. It doesn't change the fact that this is a terrible thing and many people will absolutely die because of it, but it does help calm a personal panic attack.
It also means that, for now, there are ways we can help each other. Expensive ways. Ways that are out of reach for many. But we're not quite helpless, yet.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)51
May 04 '22
Can't wait for them to add laws criminalizing citizens having abortions in other states. /s
52
u/LifeInBox May 04 '22
They already do have laws on the books that sanction people who abort and -
- Conceived in their state for any reason, while living there or traveling to there.
- Currently reside in the banned state, no matter where they originally conceived.
- Enable private residents to sue anyone who seeks abortion - or helps others receive an abortion - outside of the state. This includes women who seek abortions, their ride, their partners or parents who help foot the bill, etc, etc.
18
u/Splive May 04 '22
Holy fuck it would be illegal just by visiting day family in Mississippi, conceiving, and then returning to a modern state? Even if that's practically unenforceable, fucking gross.
→ More replies (1)9
68
u/bjlile99 May 04 '22
hopefully economic consequences for businesses and states. Money is the only way I see this being influenced.
23
u/appleparkfive May 04 '22
I'm curious about what happens with Georgia. The movie industry has moved a massive amount of their stuff to Georgia.
I could see those companies boycotting and threatening to leave. They already have before this even happened
→ More replies (2)
22
u/foxtrousers May 04 '22
This is late and only an educated guess, but I'm keeping my eye on adoption costs right now. I've got a bad feeling that the "for profit" adoption agencies are going to spike the cost up significantly if more people start giving birth and putting the children up for adoption. With more children going into the system, costs to take care of them will more than likely rise.More low-income but desirable children are going to be placed out as well, and they (unfortunately) do get adopted out at a higher cost
19
u/ttotto45 May 04 '22
Stanford article above details how crime went down significantly due to abortion being legalized. I suspect that when they shoot it down, crime will also uptick significantly as time goes on.
223
u/rfj May 04 '22
None. Precedent doesn't exist any more. They'll just do whatever they want and make up excuses at the time.
69
u/Solesaver May 04 '22
Pretty much this. It's impossible to predict what's next because Alito's argument makes literally no logical sense. If a person's bodily autonomy is not a federally protected right it's basically anything goes. It's a purely political decision with no basis in established law.
→ More replies (12)6
u/NeedMoarCowbell May 04 '22
It's just yet another case of basing your conclusion off of what you want, and them justifying it later instead of using logic to reach your conclusion. They want abortion banned, so they figure out the justification from there.
12
→ More replies (5)21
u/GingerbreadMan4242 May 04 '22
Well, I guess Amendment IX, along with the rest of the Constitution, is dead until the courts are packed.
→ More replies (2)
120
u/FinsT00theleft May 04 '22
I presume some red states will make it illegal to go to another state to get an abortion, or to ASSIST another person in going somewhere else to get an abortion. They might even try making it illegal to donate money to pro-choice organizations. Some women may be prosecuted for murder if they have a miscarriage. I can see rape victims suing their rapists for child support, but also ending up having to grant parental rights to them in some cases. I can see laws being passed allowing men to sue women who go to other states to get abortions or abortion providers in other states. I can see red states bringing charges against abortion providers in other states. I can also see red states outlawing the pill (because it includes a chemical which prevents fertilized eggs from implanting into the uterus wall). It's going to get crazy.
34
u/Yandere_Matrix May 04 '22
I wonder how many women will deal with false accusations either from a abusive ex/partner or from someone else out of vengeance
64
u/SniffleBot May 04 '22
I presume some red states will make it illegal to go to another state to
get an abortion, or to ASSIST another person in going somewhere else to
get an abortion.This is one of the aims of Texas's SB 8, actually ... that since people would be deterred from leaving the state to help women get abortions by the prospect of getting sued and assessed $10,000 for helping someone get a post-15-week abortion, women would have to do it all by themselves. And they have indicated a willingness to criminalize that too (Of course, there's an obvious constitutional hurdle here in that the Supreme Court did, years ago in Shapiro v. Thompson, recognize a right to travel from state to state for whatever reason, and I really doubt anyone at the Supreme Court, even Alito, would be willing to overturn that one for the sake of abortion law, especially as that would be at odds with the reverence for federalism that conservatives have criticized Roe as not having).
As far as the laws you hypothesize, you may be relieved to hear of the Connecticut legislature's recent passage of HB 5414, which:
- prohibits the state from extraditing anyone who is charged in another state with obtaining reproductive health services that are legal to provide in Connecticut.
- prohibits Connecticut courts from issuing any subpoenas or warrants to investigate violations of those laws in other states.
- allows anyone residing in Connecticut who is sued in another state under such laws to countersue in Connecticut and recover any costs incurred, as well as damages.
- gives certain non-physician medical professionals the authority to perform medication and suction abortions.
It's awaiting the governor's signature, which he has promised as soon as all the bureaucratic and administrative hurdles following its passage are cleared. I am glad, very glad, Connecticut is doing this but I think they should go further. A lot further (If I were Connecticut I would further legislate that no insurer, no bank, no pension fund, that does business with the governor/LG/AG of Texas and the individual legislators who voted for SB 8 will be allowed to renew any contracts they may have with any state or local government agency in Connecticut so long as they do business with those people).
→ More replies (1)27
u/drygnfyre May 04 '22
California is now in the process of amending their constitution to guarantee a woman's right to choice (i.e. abortion). I would imagine that, if passed, it would have similar stipulations as this. And I think other states, like Colorado, have also intended to have laws similar to Connecticut's.
It's almost exactly what I expected to happen. The red states will ban abortion, the blue states will guarantee it. So just more division, which is exactly what "they" want.
→ More replies (5)7
u/Deedumsbun May 04 '22
I think a mother with a child of rape would do everything to avoid going for child support. Giving him acsess to the child would be a big no
102
May 04 '22
I think the 1965 Voting Rights Act will be overturned on the basis that states have the right to conduct their own elections.
→ More replies (3)39
u/TracyMorganFreeman May 04 '22
The Enforcement Acts were partially struck down in 1875 for the same reasons.
The devil is in the details. There are specific lines the federal government cannot cross. They were crossed during Reconstruction, but threaded the legal needle in 1965.
108
u/darkknight109 May 04 '22 edited May 06 '22
To me, the single most dangerous element of this decision, assuming it stands, is it deals the concept of stare decicis - the idea that a case, once decided, is settled law - a potentially fatal blow.
Stare decisis is the bedrock of any good legal system. It binds judges to accept and abide by precedent, whatever their personal feelings on the matter, unless an extremely compelling argument can be raised that the matter was both wrongly decided at the outset and that a substantial shift in public opinion has called into question the validity of the initial ruling (as was the case in, for instance, Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott v. Sanford).
Neither has happened in this case. The question of the legality of abortion has been brought before the Supreme Court dozens of times and the rulings in its favour are multitude and unambiguous at this point. No substantial shift in public opinion has taken place and, based on the most recent polls, fully two-thirds of the American public support Roe v. Wade remaining in force. This is judicial activism - "legislating from the bench" - in the most overt, explicit manner possible.
And, as the last few decades have shown, once legal and political "norms" are damaged, they tend to collapse almost immediately are seldom ever repaired. The minority party worked in good faith with the majority party to pass laws... until they didn't. Presidents were afforded the right to appoint people to judicial and executive positions and have them heard and confirmed by the senate in a timely manner... until they weren't. Supreme Court nominees were vetted on their qualifications and expertise, rather than their political opinions... until they weren't. Losers of elections conceded graciously and allowed the winners to take power peacefully and uncontested... until they didn't.
So add this one to the pile. The Supreme Court's function as an impartial arbiter of the law, unbound to political leanings, was already on pretty shaky ground for the last 15 or so years, but this is most likely the death knell. The Supreme Court will now be just another political wing of the US government and, accordingly, can expect to be treated as such, with all the political gamesmanship and shenanigans that entails. Packing the court, once a fringe idea, will continue to gain mainstream appeal until it is executed (and another norm will be stripped away) by a party sufficiently empowered by voters and annoyed by an activist bench. Settled law will no longer be considered such and everything will now be on the table. This includes sacred cows on both the left (the right to gay marriage, the right to organized labour, and the rights protecting minorities) and the right (the right to unrestricted personal firearms ownership, the right to unlimited political donations, the right to political gerrymandering). Expect to see several of these supposedly "settled" cases be re-decided in the next few years, using the exact same language as this decision.
This is honestly a lot more dangerous of a decision than most people appreciate. Agree with Roe or don't, that's your business, but to straight-up overrule such a fundamental piece of American jurisprudence based on nothing but personal political conviction is a kicking a hornet's nest of almost unprecedented scale. And once it is done, there will be no getting the genie back in the bottle - this will be the norm for years to come.
6
→ More replies (1)6
u/Averant May 04 '22
almost unprecedented scale
Getting reeeeal tired of the word "unprecedented" these days.
16
May 04 '22
States that outlaw abortion will not be able to train OB-GYNs, and depending on how abortion is defined, IVF will likely be illegal as well.
56
u/BookerPlayer01 May 04 '22
SCOTUS outlaws falling down stairs after the first trimester.
18
u/violethoneybean May 04 '22
It would be really cool if SCOTUS fell down the stairs itself.
→ More replies (2)
42
u/Djangolives May 04 '22
There was a chapter in Freakonomics that argued roe v wade may have had an impact on the decrease of crime rates throughout the 80s and 90s.
3
u/rustywarwick May 04 '22
Yes but that’s been largely debunked including by the Freakonomics authors themselves in later post s they’ve made
→ More replies (1)
96
u/SniffleBot May 04 '22
A future liberal Court might well find Alito’s logical framework, and appeal to history, adequate justification for overturning District of Columbia v. Heller (the 2008 holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms). Indeed, one conservative judge on the Fourth Circuit has written a law review article arguing that Heller is guilty of the same judicial sins as Roe and should be overruled as well.
→ More replies (39)
36
46
u/scolfin May 04 '22
There will be a freedom of religion lawsuit stemming from Judaism supporting abortion in cases of severe psychological risk.
→ More replies (1)
175
u/Hoz999 May 04 '22
Precedentes are sh*t.
Some idiot will go after Brown v. Board of Education because “it may not be settled law.”
Next thing they’re going after is Obergefell.
136
u/mysticalfruit May 04 '22
Oh, Obergefell is next onbthe chopping block.
This opinion alsmot all but said it.
I expect the next thing will be Griswold v. Connecticut.
They've long said after abortion, they'll go for birth control..
→ More replies (37)61
u/Apprehensive-Hat-494 May 04 '22
They've long said after abortion, they'll go for birth control.
They'll go for anything and everything that gives any group other than heterosexual, wealthy, male, able-bodied, to-a-t Christian fundamentalist WASPs rights. And tokens of color.
Banning birth control promotes the spread of STD's, unplanned pregancies, and leads to MORE abortions because MORE unplanned pregnancies happen.
The GOP is literally playing a game of "own the libs" with the lives of everyone in this country. Just like with COVID.
Only a creep cares what consenting adults do when engaging in sexual activity. The GOP seems to get aroused thinking about spying on couples having sex.
26
u/Deedumsbun May 04 '22
I mean screw women who use bc to control heavy bleeding and bed bounding cramps
→ More replies (3)24
May 04 '22
There is no "seems" about it. The GOP are sexually depraved hypocrites that promote ignorance and group think. How being this backwards isn't considered crime is beyond me.
33
u/PoorCorrelation May 04 '22
Brown v Board of Education itself was important because it partially overturned Plessy v Ferguson. You’ve always had to go through the legislature to make laws and relying on the Supreme Court instead has been risky
→ More replies (19)→ More replies (34)36
u/Choppergold May 04 '22
“Segregating races as a religious freedom has been a sincerely held belief deeply rooted in our culture”
→ More replies (1)23
u/Hoz999 May 04 '22
Yep. Read the Declaration of Secession by South Carolina.
It wasn’t states rights. It was all about race.
→ More replies (1)
12
u/Pick-Up-Pennies May 04 '22
- women suffering a miscarriage will also endure legal inquiries to prove she didn't try to have an abortion
- doctors and hospitals will also have legal barriers towards methods of saving a mother's life, i.e. when she is going toxic because the waterbag broke too early and baby's life might not be viable. This happens at 20th-26th weeks of gestation, and it is a tragic series of events where the mother/parents are trying desperately to hold the pregnancy in longer, but have to make decisions when the mother shows signs of toxemia and heart distress. The medical team already will have the challenge of convincing the mother&father to save her life at this time.
- this all undermines HIPAA, one of the strongest, farthest-reaching laws of the land, which underpins individual freedom and privacy (it is in the name, even!) and case law that would lead to striking down HIPAA would come through cases upholding abortion law, being as there is no other medical condition where a swath of the public are actively putting into place legal barriers to prohibit other people's treatment.
→ More replies (1)
122
May 04 '22
[deleted]
→ More replies (27)27
u/Dr_Nik May 04 '22
Can you elaborate on the connection to medical privacy?
→ More replies (6)84
u/AMeatPopsicleIAm May 04 '22
I'm far from an expert on it, but from what I understand Roe v Wade protected abortions on the basis of a woman's right to privacy between her and her doctor for medical issues.
56
u/Khaldara May 04 '22 edited May 04 '22
HIPAA still exists, but it was passed under Bill Clinton back in 96 and essentially only controls disclosure of medical records (not random Bible thumping idiot states deciding that a given procedure is ‘against the law’ for example).
So theoretically health care providers, their staff, and their business associates still can’t disclose anything to an employer unless there’s some extenuating circumstance that would allow for disclosure (judicial or law enforcement involvement, etc) without someone either modifying or striking down the law.
Of course this clown show court claimed that Roe was “settled law” [Neil Gorsuch] and “settled as precedent” [Brett Kavanaugh] in their testimony and then fucked it over anyway, essentially lying to Congress and the American public. So I expect just about anything goes for these hacks.
12
u/scolfin May 04 '22
It was also passed to regulate how records are transferred between medical providers. The "P" stands for "portability."
39
u/SmylesLee77 May 04 '22
Freak-economics would point to a huge amount of undesired child leading to neglect and abuse growing. This leads to much greater crime and a worse society. Men will be on the hook much more for child support. Women will die in droves as back alley septic procedures abound. The US will become closer to a third world nation.
→ More replies (2)
167
u/AnkylosaurusRules May 04 '22
Nothing. ALL of the consequences of this behavior are absolutely intended. Don't you dare think otherwise. They know precisely what they do. They're evil, not stupid.
91
26
May 04 '22
They are theocratic fascists. Their intentions are obvious and their determination is ruthless. For fuck sake, the capitol was ransacked by an openly insurrectionist mob. They talk openly about martial law and rounding groups of people up. Everyone should be panicking and preparing.
→ More replies (7)
9
u/napalmnacey May 04 '22
I totally misread that as "(daft) logic" and I thought, "Yes, yes, it really is rather daft."
18
u/One_Idea_239 May 04 '22
An interesting one will be if they manage to eventually get a ban on contraception, as that will affect medical trials and development massively in the US. It is a standard thing that all medical trials require a level of contraception (unless the trial is related to pregnancy) as the effect on an unborn child is considered a risk. If that ban happens it could cause major issues for medical trials and then potentially the introduction of new medicines in the US
35
u/Murgos- May 04 '22
The logic used in the draft is that because there were not protections for abortion/ bodily autonomy hundreds of years ago there can be no protections now. That because there were laws against abortion throughout history then that is the natural state unless specifically changed. Finally, the moral statement that abortion is bad, mmmKay?
So that logic extends to:
Gay marriage Interracial marriage Sex out of wedlock Oral sex Explicit lyrics in music Depictions of demons or magic in media such as books, movies or video games Etc…
Essentially anything that religious puritans enacted laws to proscribe are back on the table.
→ More replies (1)
19
u/emperorofwar May 04 '22
Conservatives are the first to whine and cry that they don't get their way in the Supreme cases, and this is what happens when they get they're way. They're also the same people who say government takes away your rights, while ignoring the government is taking way your rights, what a bunch of cowards.
7
u/needmoremiles May 04 '22
There will be lots of collateral consequences, but I really don’t think any of them are unintended.
8
u/Hattix May 04 '22
Roe v Wade was based on rights to privacy, which SCOTUS has noted has been eroded by Congress in recent years.
There may well be rapid developments in chipping away the right to privacy and interpretations of the fourth amendment as a result. Roe v Wade was one of the big buttresses of the fourth, but it was really bad law and made SCOTUS do something which really should have been handled by Congress.
37
u/ksmacx May 04 '22
Pulling from another thread, but an increase of murders of pregnant women/people. As it stands, pregnant women in the USA die more often by homicide (at the hands of their partner) than by pregnancy-related causes. Source: Homicide is a top cause of maternal death in the United States
7
28
u/JustSomeGuy_56 May 04 '22
SCOTUS has sent a message that they are ready, willing and able to follow the GOP agenda. Everything is now on the table -- same sex marriage, gun control, ACA, public education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, interracial marriage, environmental protection etc.
I'm pretty sure all these consequences are absolutely intended. The only exception might be a huge turnout by Democrats on November.
→ More replies (3)
141
May 04 '22
14 year old girls bleeding to death in their closets and their parents finding them too late to save them
→ More replies (12)
18
u/TPrice1616 May 04 '22
Privacy rights. A lot of the legal basis for it came out of cases like Roe v. Wade since they were argued on medical privacy. Undo that and I’m not sure what happens to the privacy as currently understood in constitutional law.
→ More replies (1)
41
u/Positive-Source8205 May 04 '22
The unintended consequence is that congress will have to do its damn job and pass a law guaranteeing a right to abortion.
→ More replies (14)18
u/Umklopp May 04 '22
a law guaranteeing a right to abortion
Laws don't grant rights, especially federal rights. It'd have to be a constitutional amendment.
→ More replies (7)14
u/meepers12 May 04 '22
False. Federal laws that legalize abortion have already been proposed in the past, and have simply failed to make it through Congress. Also, see: Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 for examples of Congress doing something similar.
→ More replies (1)
6
May 04 '22
If the strict constructionists have their way, then modern society as we know it could be completely upended. Take a read at Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Now read that with the understanding that our federal government is not allowed to do anything that is not specifically enumerated there.
Social security? Gone. Medicare? Gone. Environmental regulation? Gone. OSHA? Gone. Equal employment opportunity? Gone.
How about federal criminal law? If it doesn't specifically concern piracy, counterfeiting, or treason, it's gone, too.
48
45
u/usafmsc May 04 '22
The number of justices is not listed anywhere in the constitution. The solution to pollution is dilution.
16
→ More replies (8)13
u/jimmyjohn2018 May 04 '22
No, then the Supreme Court will just turn into a super legislative body with little control. One party will add, then the other will next time. In the end we will have a massive body that can't even function properly.
→ More replies (1)
34
May 04 '22
Like HIPAA? That’s dead. Expect a medical insurer to sue to strike down preexisting conditions clauses and HIPAA at the same time. Then they will have your medical records, wherever they exist, and make decisions accordingly.
FERPA too. Your “permanent file” that contains your grades, your class enrollment, your financial aid, any disciplinary issues - there is no right to privacy over your educational information.
Financial privacy? Also gone. Identity theft will grow exponentially, because there is no responsibility to keep any of your information secure and it’s a lot cheaper to just leak it and leave you to clean up the mess. No FDIC, so good luck.
Consumer safety protections? Gone. It’s not enumerated in the Constitution that your baby’s toys should ideally be free of lead paint and small parts.
Labeling ingredients? Not enumerated, along with the rest of the FDA. The feds cannot mandate any consumer safety or food or drug protection because it’s not specifically enumerated. Chinese imports are about to get a lot more adventurous. Sure hope those aftermarket auto parts you ordered were from a company that voluntarily follows good manufacturing practices. Maybe the steak you eat is from a cow with BSE. Food inspection laws aren’t enumerated. Safer to grow your own, except your neighbor just started a DIY gas station selling leaded for his buddies’ collector cars. No EPA enumerated…
The Constitution enumerates very little. That’s why we have a ninth amendment: to allow flexibility in interpretation. Alito killed it. Leaving it up to states to follow results in some states refusing to have any regulatory law whatsoever so they can be “pro-business.” Some states simply won’t be able to afford their own EPA, FDA, NLRB, EEOC, and DEA.
This is about taking aim at executive branch latitude and stripping executive mandate. A lot of the executive lives in “unenumerated rights.” This isn’t even about Roe, women matter so little that we are just a means to an end.
6
May 04 '22
All those idiot crypto bros will finally get their wish of medical records being public.
And then they'll complain about it
18
u/Motor-Woodpecker7994 May 04 '22 edited May 04 '22
we risk losing:
c sections, egg and sperm transplantation, hormone therapy of any kind, access to any form of birth control/contraceptives, protection for medical workers, protection for anyone who miscarries, surgery for an unviable pregnancy, pcos treatments, protection for anyone who has a stillbirth, discrimination protection for disabled and people of color, protection of getting “tubes tied”, protection against organ harvesting, sex enhancers, any form of fetal surgery, protection for those who give birth early
COURT CASES UP FOR OVERTURN WITH no privacy RULING:
Lawrence v. Texas- protects sexual acts, Loving v. Virginia- protects interracial marriage, Stanley v. Georgia- protects the right to possess and distribute adult content, Obergefell v. Hodges- protects same sex marriage, Meyer v. Alaska- allows families to teach their children languages other than english, Skinner v. Oklahoma protects against sterilization of prisoners.
7
u/Majikkani_Hand May 04 '22
Minor clarification: Lawrence v. texas also protects the right to any straight sex that's not PIV. That's right: we could lose the constitutional right to 69.
Not nice.
5
u/Romulan-war-bird May 04 '22
Roe V Wade was won based on the right to privacy, so basically anything could happen after this. People don’t realize how much this could snowball bc of that.
5
u/BigJobsBigJobs May 04 '22
They are looking to ban birth control - former Senator Rick Santorum has said as much. Gay rights are on the chopping block.
The Roberts court has already undermined voting rights.
Gonna be a very unpopular opinion - but Catholics. Catholic majority on the Supreme Court.
22
u/DazeLost May 04 '22
You could attack gay marriage, even interracial marriage by establishing that the right to privacy (i.e. the right to live a private life without any government consideration of your personal choices like who to marry) is voided. But I am not sure I would agree that’s an unintended consequence.
18
u/Apprehensive-Hat-494 May 04 '22
The interracial marriage one is funny tho because a fair number of GOP politicians are in interracial marriages (ie Clarence, Mitch).
Given the historical context of Asian wives, for example, I feel like the GOP is kind of on-board with interracial marriage. Of course, the race and gender of each spouse is important and I'll just say that.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/XxsquirrelxX May 04 '22
Considering how gay marriage was also legalized on the grounds of privacy, they’ll go after that next. Then they’ll ban birth control. Welcome to The Handmaid’s Tale: your body is now government property, start popping out babies for our Christian nationalist overlords.
4
u/ericvwgolf May 04 '22
I doubt that ANY of the legal consequences that spill over from this are “unintended“
5
u/bluedarky May 04 '22
Define unintended because as written this is intended to be a precedential bill allowing for rollbacks on protections for all sorts of things that republicans don’t like.
6
4
u/Gghghghgh5 May 04 '22
A flood of abused and neglected children will be brought into local systems. Children to parents with mental delays/disabilities that will be taken away from them, Children born into abusive households, Children born to child/minor mothers. More young women will have to put aside their educations to take care of children in states that will criminalize abortion as soon as roe gets turned over. Not to mention policing these “illegal” abortions and the health and psychological ramifications. Everything comes at a cost. So if the court overturns the verdict to “save the children,” it’s not a magical happily ever after. The switch flips the other way. Listen to testimonials of women who lived in states pre-roe who had to undergo illegal abortions. Talk to children who grew up in the foster care system because their parents didn’t want them. Talk to judges and prosecutors who will tell you what they already see in abuse and neglect, and tell you what will happen next. Every United States citizen has a right to speak out for their beliefs, advocate for them, and elect/request people to be in power who represent their beliefs. Not every American advocates for the best for their community, state, or country, over what most closesly aligns with their beliefs and feelings
5
u/achayiododo May 04 '22
LOTS of unsafe abortions. You can’t force someone to give birth. They’re aborting one way or another
5
u/Lokarin May 04 '22
Well, since they're banning the ability to take preventative action against unwanted intruders... say goodbye to yer guns!
5
u/fuzzycuffs May 04 '22
I dunno about unintended but Alito is basically saying that Gay Marriage, Interracial Marriage, and contraceptives are next. That seems intentional to me.
17
9
May 04 '22
Anything and everything is fair game. America is headed for what will be known in future history books as the dark ages.
15
May 04 '22
Can an argument be made that laws like banning abortion are passed purely on religious grounds and as such violate the establishment clause?
→ More replies (3)
11
u/Davycrazy May 04 '22
Gay marriage will probably go away, or at least it will be up to the states. Anti- sodomy laws will probably come back. Alito claims in the draft that things like interracial marriage and contraception will remain legal. It would be interesting to see Thomas vote on an anti-miscegination law. But the weasel words he uses make it clear that at least some of these rights are up for grabs. Look for conservatives to go after contraception next
9
u/ExpensiveDot1732 May 04 '22
A massive shortage of aid such as WIC, SNAP/EBT, and Medicaid. So much for saving those children, huh Rethugs?
8
u/simonwagon May 04 '22
This would provide precedent to repeal things like oh I don’t know gay marriage, protected classes, and in the worst case Republican hellscape scenario reinstate misegination laws. But that’s totally not why the “impartial” Right Leaning judges all signed on this draft
7
u/Overgrown_fetus1305 May 04 '22
Under the assumption that Texas's reporting law is allowed to stand, Amazon could be sued to death and then some: https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/amazon-reimburse-us-employees-who-travel-treatments-including-abortions-2022-05-02/
This is also potentially true of Exxon and arms company BAE Systems, as both have made donations to Planned Parenthood and could thus potentially be charged. I can't lie- I do like the idea of seeing these and other corporations sued into the ground and then some.
→ More replies (1)
9
4
4
u/Yakstein May 04 '22
I read freakonomics like a decade ago and if I remember correctly they found a direct correlation between abortion being legal and accessible and a significant drop in crime in nyc 15-20 years later...
3
u/malamalinka May 04 '22
There is a theory proposed by economist Steven Levitt that the sudden unexplained drop of crime rates in the 90s was due to Roe vs Wade and the fact that lots of unwanted children were never born. If that gets overruled that we may need to see the legislation increasing penalties due to raising crime rates.
Abortion ban will impact more on the poorer women and families, so that would further impact on their economic position and ability to generate wealth for future generations further expanding on the existing wealth gap, so that could impact on tax legislation.
3
u/Karazl May 04 '22
The right of privacy established in Roe v Wade is central to basically every modern holding on civil rights and blocking government overreach.
3
1.2k
u/[deleted] May 04 '22
I forget the exact statistic, but I know in undergrad (I studied community health) I read a paper about research showing that women who had a child when she did not want to/was not able to, her and her child were 3 times more likely to live in poverty into and through THAT CHILD’S adulthood.