Hey, there! Log in / Register
Abortion still legal in Massachusetts, for now
By adamg on Fri, 06/24/2022 - 1:15pm
The State House News Service reports that minutes after the Supreme Court threw out Roe v. Wade and with it the legal underpinnings of everything from gay marriage to contraception, Gov. Baker signed an executive order he says will protect access to reproductive health-care services in Massachusetts.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
So that's that.
Charlie is definitely not running for President as a Republican.
Am I in Giliad?
And is my name OFSCOTUS?
Nah
The Handmaid’s Tale is problematic. In short:
“In Western fiction, dystopic stories often ask, ‘What if this atrocity had happened to white people instead?’ […] Appropriating the experiences of women of color to create a hell for white women raises uncomfortable questions.”
To be clear, I have far more contempt for the Supreme Court and it’s horrid ruling today than I do for Margaret Atwood. But the horrors of Giliad are not an apt analogy for what the Supreme Court will unleash — in the real world, the consequences of the Supreme Court’s intervention disproportionally fall on the medical and personal decisions of minority women, not white women.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/15/15808530/handmaids-tale-hulu-margaret...
You do realize that several
You do realize that several of the characters are Black?
Please read the decision
The majority opinion goes to some length to draw a distinction between Roe and Casey -- and today's decision to overrule them -- and other cases that rely on the right to privacy from Griswold (such as Obergefell and Lawrence). See, e.g., pp. 36-38 of Alito's opinion. In other words, this decision has no impact on other Supreme Court precedents on gay marriage, interracial marriage, or even contraception. The next state to try to prohibit gay marriage will have a hard time getting a single vote from the current Court.
Wrong
Thomas specifically wrote in his dissent "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswald (contraception), Lawrance (sodomy), and Obergfell (gay marriage)." Noticeably absent is Loving which would affect this feckless asshat personally.
<sigh>
The majority opinion is what controls; not Thomas's solo concurrence (not dissent). If you read Thomas's concurrence, you will notice that 90% of the authority he cites for overturning Obergefell, Lawrence, Griswold, etc., was written by him in other previous concurrences and dissents. In other words, Thomas's position is very far beyond the mainstream even within the Supreme Court itself. No one joined him in his concurrence; it's just him.
But I will edit what I said earlier: someone trying to overturn Obergefell will get a single vote. But that's it, at least from this Court.
double sigh
and how many other justices who overturned Roe v Wade claimed in their confirmation hearings that it was settled law? Hint its most. So forgive me if I don't buy into your naivety that no justice (your original wording) will vote to overturn other precedents.
a lot can change in 5 years
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/08/21/brett-kavanaugh-roe-v-wade...
You’re not being rational here
Obergefell was not a unanimous decision: Roberts, Alito, and Thomas all dissented in 2015, and presumably would vote the same way if the case came up again. It seems likely that at least two of Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/Barrett would join them, and likely all three. There are only three reliable liberal votes on the court when it comes to gay rights: Kennedy retired and Ginsburg is dead. By my count, Obergefell will probably be overruled on a 6-3 majority.
Not to mention that 5/6 people who voted for Dobbs today explicitly promised Congress that they would never do such a thing, that Roe and Casey are settled law. So the entire conservative wing of the court is acting in pure bad faith when they make statements about precedent and judicial modesty.
Really not sure why you’re so confident that gay marriage is safe.
That's the exact opposite of
That's the exact opposite of what Thomas said:
Fuck this theocratic shithole.
But...
But he didn't mention Loving.
I wonder why.
I wonder
Are the laws prohibiting Clarence and Gini's marriage still on the books ... waiting?
Would a citizen's arrest be in order? (well, it is for Ginnie's sedition)
Good chance of it
Legislative reform and removing old crap from the books is boring and doesn't help politicians win elections, so it tends not to get done. That's why there are all kinds of old unenforced laws hanging around just waiting to bite someone in the ass.
...to bite someone in the ass
There's probably still a law against THAT on the books somewhere.
arbitrary
Why should we bother reading this "decision"? This decision was clearly arbitrary.
I did
It just shows what intense idealogues huffing their own stuff that Alito and Thomas are.
Don't think for a minute that they have any restraint, especially after the treasonous Mrs. Thomas has gone unsanctioned.
It seems your effort to opine here..
Wasn't thoroughly researched...