Can someone explain the Roe vs Wade to a Non American?

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain what that means now? And who voted for it?

Is this really a move back into the dark ages?

[nightdrot]

Roe v. Wade was a ruling by the US Supreme Court made in 1973 that made abortion a constitutional right, thereby overriding the individual laws on abortion in the 50 states. Up to that ruling, abortion was legal, in varying degrees, in each state. After Roe, as not just a legal, but a constitutional issue, abortion was effectively legalized across the board.

Even at the time, Roe was somewhat controversial. In general, the states - with some exceptions - had individually been moving toward more liberal abortion laws. The problem with Roe was that it found the right to an abortion derivatively.

The ruling argued that there was a right to privacy. This right was not explicitly written in the Constitution but, the ruling argued, was found in the Constitution's "prenumbra." That is, in the principles implicit in its explicitly listed rights. The right to an abortion then was derivative of this right to privacy.

Suffice to say, the reasoning was somewhat tortured and was immediately controversial. As a legal matter, initially, it made the right to abortion, theoretically, unlimited. Literally allowing abortion right up the moment of birth. This then provoking a series of Supreme Court challenges that gradually limited the right to the first trimester of a pregnancy, as well as restricting abortions for things like gender preference and such.

As a political and cultural matter, Roe shattered any chance of a gradually evolving social consensus on abortion. As noted, to the point in 1973 when the ruling was made, most states - though again not all - had been slowly moving to more liberal abortion laws. When Roe short circuited the process, each side went to their corner, so to speak, and abortion became a hot button issue, with any chance for compromise being severely circumscribed.

That said, as the late liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted, Roe, in making the right to an abortion derivative of another right, neither of which was listed in the Bill of Rights but was to be found in the Constitution's "prenumbra," was "poorly reasoned and poorly written." The challenges that gradually narrowed Roe's scope became the mechanism by which Roe was overturned.

State legislatures began writing laws that limited abortion to earlier and earlier in time, in effect making it de facto illegal. The "Right to Choose" factions challenged these laws and - eventually and somewhat ironically - brought forth the case that led to Roe's overturning and the return of the abortion debate to the states.

Now, as it was before 1973, abortion is once again not a constitutional right, but can be legalized or not, limited and defined or not, by state legislatures and voters. It being added that the 10th Amendment to the Constitution states that any power not specifically granted to the Federal government is reserved to the states or to the people. Although there is nothing precluding the Congress, should it vote to do so, from making abortion legal across the Federal level.

(Adding that, as it is NOT a constitutional right, a subsequent session of Congress could theoretically repeal any law passed on abortion. The only way being to make abortion a constitutional right is to amend the Constitution. Although this last option is theoretically possible, as a political reality it is extremely unlikely.)

Hope that helps.

[jimmy2]

You so right it's not

[nightdrot]

@jimmy2 Well, from 1973 to a few days ago it was a constitutional right. I am not unhappy that it was overturned, but that was the fact of the matter. Albeit that, as I noted - and as even the late Justice Ginsberg, who deplored the ruling even as she favored he result - it was a constitutional right set on rather sandy intellectual soil.

[Soteris]

While that is mostly true I first of all dont think its particularly useful for a non-American AKA someone who is not really interested in the details and history of America and is just out after the major effective changes.

I also disagree with a lot of the "behind the scenes" discussions and decisions you mentioned, mainly because I consider abortion to be an essential part of basic healthcare but more importantly a direct extension of Bodily integrity which relates to the 4th amendment.

In my humble opinion the 4th amendment grants women an unlimited and unrestricted right to abortion until such a time that you can prove that the fetus has developed into a separate recognized individual with its own constitutional rights. In fact, I would even argue that the burden of proof would be to prove the personhood of the fetus rather than having to disprove it since the mothers constitutional right to her own body is already established.

I do not find interpreting bodily integrity through the 4th amendment like this to be even slightly controversial. You either have a right to your own body or things are going to go really badly in an age where your DNA is readily available not to mention modern medicine and surveillance.

[nightdrot]

@Soteris On the first point, this is just a basic history of the case and its implications. There is nothing here that is "behind the scenes." He asked someone to explain the ruling, and I did so.

As far as your humble opinion regarding the 4th Amendment. That is all it is - no offense intended. That is not how the court ruled in 1973. Nor is it how the court ruled recently. Whatever your "feelings" on the matter, that is not where the law stood or where it stands now.

Indeed, going into a prolonged argument about the 4th Amendment really would have been a case of going "behind the scenes." My answer was strictly limited to Roe. To have gone into the 4th Amendment, whatever your views on it, would have been to go well beyond what the questioner asked. Specifically, he asked about Roe, not about the abortion issue generally.

[Soteris]

Forgive me from entirely disregarding recent court rulings on the basis that they are corrupt and politically motivated rather than an honest interpretation of the constitution etc.. As such I find the basic logical argument surrounding the 4th amendment to be far more persuasive because it is simple and very hard to argue against with our current understanding regarding biology.

[nightdrot]

@Soteris Again, I was discussing Roe, not the abortion issue generally. That said, the recent ruling effectively negated those lower court rulings. You may have a valid case to make, but as I say, per the current ruling, that case has effectively been rendered null.

The Supreme Court has effectively ruled that there is no right - explicit or implicit - to an abortion. To argue then that there is such a right inhering in the 4th Amendment is academic. The Supreme Court has rendered its judgment for the foreseeable future.

The day may come when this is tested again. However, that does not appear likely and, in any case, at least for now, there does not appear to be any effort to base such a right in the 4th Amendment or any other.

[Soteris]

True, it does not seam likely to change for a while unless Biden decides to add more justices but the fact that the 4th amendment argument is "Academic" does not make it any less obvious. Just because the current justices has decided to play politics does not undermine the very obvious rights intended in the constitution.

If we for example argue that the SCOTUS were to make a new interpretation regarding the first amendment that went against everything written in it, the fact that they went about it through the proper channels and officially does not change the fact that it is clearly against the constitution as it is written.

[nightdrot]

@Soteris To repeat, yet again, the question was about Roe, not about the wider abortion issue and the reasoning behind it. The 4th Amendment is academic because the Court - playing politics or not - found no basis in the Constitution for asserting a right to an abortion.

The constitutional law, as written, is that there is no such right and to assert a right implicit in the 4th Amendment is a theoretical exercise. To test the proposition it would have to be fought out in the courts - and right now there is no basis to do so.

If there is a "cause of action," then a case may arise and then flow up the chain. If it even gets to he Supreme Court, there would be no way to judge without seeing the hypothetical case that would get it there. Thus, the point is, as I say, academic.

[gorydetails]

Roe v Wade was a supreme court decision back in 72 that said a woman's right to privacy with her doctor concerning abortion was constitutionally protected so therefore there could not be a law making abortion illegal. It was a crappy decision at the time.

The current supreme court had a legal challenge to RvW, and decided that this right to privacy was not actually a constitutional right, and the original ruling was not constitutional. This allows the individual states to decide their respective laws on abortion.

[Cherry234]

I understand what Roe vs. Wade means even though I'm really upset about it being overturned. I understand that abortion isn't banned entirely like some people may assume the left thinks. It just means that each state can make their own laws on abortion. Some states will ban abortion after a certain time frame just like some states will protect and even expand abortion rights.

[Cubus]

And some states will make it legal to kill a child after birth, like they want to do in California.

[Anonymous]

I think it means that the choice to ban abortions is now given to each state, so now each state can choose whether they want to make it legal or illegal

[madgoat]

Are the states actually banning abortion or just curtailing it to say 15 weeks?

[Opinion Owner]

I think that originally abortions were allowed before 24 weeks because the fetus is not considered a viable pregnancy at that point but now that it’s been overturned I think it means that the states have the choice to ban abortions after 15 weeks.

[madgoat]

Yeah, thanks, a bit different to an overall ban then.

[Opinion Owner]

No worries and yeah I thought it was a complete ban at first but I’m pretty sure it’s just a ban after a certain point.

[Agagagagaga]

@madgoat There is no nationwide ban on abortions and they are not illegal nationally. A LOT of this is people freaking out and misunderstanding the ruling.

All the Supreme Court said was that women have no CONSTITUTIONAL right to an abortion since abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. You can’t protect a right that isn’t outlined and say whether it is Constitutional or not if it isn’t even in the Constitution. SCOTUS just said, “It’s up to the individual states. Let them decide. It’s their jurisdiction that has to decide this, not us.”

There ARE several states however that already had in place “trigger laws”, meaning that any federal repeal of Roe would trigger an automatic ban on abortions in their respective state. So they had a law on the books that IF Roe is ever overturned it will become illegal in (fill in the blank state) immediately.

Several states had these trigger laws. Some banned it, others set term limits on the abortions.

There are still several states where abortion is perfectly legal and accessible. It will NEVER be outlawed in California for instance. It’s simply too liberal and too secular a state. Likewise there are other states where it will likely never become illegal.

There is no total ban on abortion. The activists are making very dishonest statements about this whole thing.

[loveslongnails]

@madgoat 22 states have restricted in some way. No state has banned it outright YET, but Texas will likely be the first.

[madgoat]

Thanks guys.

[Kereology]

It makes abortion no longer constitutionally protected right, which allows it to be banned/legalized at the state level. They could also legalize it or ban it at the federal level, but that hasn't been done yet.

[Cubus]

Till now abortion in USA was mandated to be legal in all states.

Now it's gonna be decided on a state level. Some states will ban abortion and in some states it will still be legal.

[Asker]

What happens if you live near a border of one of those states. Could you catch the bus over in the morning, abortion in afternoon, then return home?

[Cubus]

I heard about some tourists who were spending holidays in Florida and decided to have sex with a porcupine. Because bestiality was illegal there, they had to travel to California to remove quills from their bodies.

So I guess yes.

[888theGreat]

The dark ages was sacrificing children to Gods , now they do it with abortion. It is returning to love, and putting children first in society again. It used to be Children and women first , now guys step on both getting out of a building on fire.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

It was a Supreme court decision that forced states to allow abortion up to a certain time. From there the law was theirs to make. Now States gave full control of when abortions are legal

[Anonymous]

You're going to get a lot of biased opinions here.
It's best to look it up in your local media.