Just a few days ago, a draft opinion of the United States Supreme Court was leaked to Politico, suggesting that the majority was inclined to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision enshrining a constitional right to abortion. The court has confirmed that the draft is indeed authentic. Although the draft is not final, it does strongly suggest that the court has already voted on the case, and has a majority of justices in favour of overturning Roe v. Wade. If that happens, it will bring an end to the notion that there is a right to abortion protected by the United States constitution, and effectively leave the definition of abortion policy back in the hands of the individual States.
This is by far the best piece I've read in your blog. I agree with your approach on two issues: first, the connection between moral values and positive law, and secondly, what defenders of abortion own us: namely, an answer to the question: What is a human being? Thanks David!
I don’t totally understand why so many are so excited about the Content of Alito’s leaked draft. Overturning Roe will expand abortion in some cases. All Judge Alito's draft would do, if approved by a majority of the Supreme Court, is return the abortion debate to the states. While states like North Dakota will limit abortion, states such as California, New York, Minnesota, and others, will seek to eliminate restrictions on abortion. By the end of 2022, 70% of abortions may be performed in one's own home by taking a pill. No doctor required. Someone living in a non-abortion state will likely still have easy access to abortion by receiving the tablets from out of state.
Judge Alito's draft only addresses the civics question about who gets to legislate on abortion. Do nine judges decide for an entire nation the legality of abortion or the voters of each state? Alito's draft does little to address the actual moral questions surrounding abortion. It is entirely kabuki theater to suggest Alito's draft is somehow taking America back to pre-1973 or eliminating a woman's ability to get access to an abortion.
David, this is a fascinating bit of writing. I agree, in the larger sense. However, you do not address what might be the "get-out-of-jail-free-card" that many a supporter of Roe v. Wade would play. What about rape or incest? Clearly, it "makes sense" as much as it can, frankly, that an abortion in these two cases should be "available" does it not? (I am using a lot of quotation marks because these are loaded terms!) I agree that Roe v. Wade seems to create a special class of human, and, for better or worse, seems to provide that entity with certain rights while removing others. If resolving those issues is easy, what of the issues with respect to the special cases I mention?
This is by far the best piece I've read in your blog. I agree with your approach on two issues: first, the connection between moral values and positive law, and secondly, what defenders of abortion own us: namely, an answer to the question: What is a human being? Thanks David!
I don’t totally understand why so many are so excited about the Content of Alito’s leaked draft. Overturning Roe will expand abortion in some cases. All Judge Alito's draft would do, if approved by a majority of the Supreme Court, is return the abortion debate to the states. While states like North Dakota will limit abortion, states such as California, New York, Minnesota, and others, will seek to eliminate restrictions on abortion. By the end of 2022, 70% of abortions may be performed in one's own home by taking a pill. No doctor required. Someone living in a non-abortion state will likely still have easy access to abortion by receiving the tablets from out of state.
Judge Alito's draft only addresses the civics question about who gets to legislate on abortion. Do nine judges decide for an entire nation the legality of abortion or the voters of each state? Alito's draft does little to address the actual moral questions surrounding abortion. It is entirely kabuki theater to suggest Alito's draft is somehow taking America back to pre-1973 or eliminating a woman's ability to get access to an abortion.
David, this is a fascinating bit of writing. I agree, in the larger sense. However, you do not address what might be the "get-out-of-jail-free-card" that many a supporter of Roe v. Wade would play. What about rape or incest? Clearly, it "makes sense" as much as it can, frankly, that an abortion in these two cases should be "available" does it not? (I am using a lot of quotation marks because these are loaded terms!) I agree that Roe v. Wade seems to create a special class of human, and, for better or worse, seems to provide that entity with certain rights while removing others. If resolving those issues is easy, what of the issues with respect to the special cases I mention?