I’m seeing a lot of comments such as this one on Media Girl:
But now, our last line of defense for Roe v. Wade before it’s inevitably overturned (Roberts has actually argued that Roe was “wrongly decided and should be overruled”) is the Senate.
Even if Roberts is confirmed (and let’s face it – he will be), that doesn’t make it inevitable that Roe and Casey will be overturned. Although it’s impossible to know for sure, with Roberts replacing O’Connor, there are probably four votes for overturning Roe: Roberts, Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia. That still leaves a five-vote majority against overturning Roe: Ginsberg, Kennedy, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens. Bush will have to replace one of those five with an anti-Roe vote before Roe can be overturned, and it’s not certain he’ll get a chance to do that.
I’m not saying that it’s a bad idea to plan for how to respond if Roe is overturned, but let’s not call it “inevitable” just yet.
However, even if Roe isn’t overturned, abortion rights can still be chipped away at. With Roberts on the court, the previously unconstitutional “Partial Birth” Abortion ban will probably become constitutional. But even after that happens, there will be further lawsuits to determine how the PBA ban is interpreted – pro-lifers will want to interpret it broadly to ban a lot of abortions. But even with a majority of the Court favoring a PBA ban, it’s not certain that a majority of the Court would accept a broad interpretation of the PBA ban. (In particular, I think it’s possible that Justice Kennedy, who would be the new swing vote, would balk at that.)
Thanks for pointing that out, it has been bugging me all week because people are jumping to conclusions about this so drastically.
Thank you for reminding us of the complexities of the high court and to let our fear dictate our future.
So, just out of curiosity, why do we continue to have this important issue hang by a thread and be dictated by the courts? (I have read a few of the arguments as to why Roe is a stretch of the interpretation of the Constitution; and I have to say they are compelling arguments as far as the wording of the constitution goes.) The question is, why don’t we have our Legislators pass laws that would insure the protection of liberties as choice and take it firmly out of the arena of the Court and allow us to move on? The major European countries have made laws with regard to choice so it is no longer an issue. Even such progressive (?) countries as India have laws made by representatives not their courts so it is not an issue.
Call me old fashioned, but I like it where the courts interpret the laws with out adding much spin, and the lawmakers make the laws that the community require and demand. Of coarse that would require an active electorate…. Blessings.