Goodbye Roe v. Wade

I’m not sure which is worse, a leaked Supreme Court document saying Roe v. Wade is being overturned or the fact that such a document was leaked at all.

Politico reported yesterday that it had received a copy of a draft majority opinion written by Justice Alito announcing the total rejection of Roe v. Wade. And Chief Justice John Roberts has confirmed the document is genuine although not necessarily final. It’s been expected for some time that the conservative-heavy (6-3) Supreme Court would overrule the abortion rights secured by Roe, but the leak of such a document is virtually unprecedented. The source of the leak and the reason for the leak must be determined and Chief Justice Roberts has ordered an investigation.

Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”

Justice Samuel Alito in an initial draft majority opinion

I’m pleased that forward-thinking Colorado, anticipating the overturn of Roe, passed a law a month ago securing abortion rights for women. In the same month my former home state of Oklahoma passed two very restrictive laws banning abortion; one of them mimics the vigilante-style law in Texas that lets any citizen sue a woman who gets an abortion or anyone who helps her. Reportedly twenty-three states have abortion-banning laws ready to be implemented as soon as Roe is overturned.

The Kavanaugh hearings confirmed for me that the Supreme Court was a lost cause, and things have only worsened since then. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to the Dark Ages for both women and the Supreme Court.

33 thoughts on “Goodbye Roe v. Wade

        1. True, and you’ll never convince me that this is a matter of law. It’s a matter of religion. So much for the separation of church and state.

      1. Yes, of course there are. And they are perfectly free to choose not to have abortions if that is what they want for themselves. However, they are not entitled to impose their personal choices on others. Surely pro-life women would not want anyone requiring them to have an abortion. Every woman is an autonomous individual with the right to decide for herself what happens to her body.

  1. Can 2022 possibly get any worse? Russia attacking Ukraine, our own Supreme Court attacking women… Don’t get me started. Oops too late. Great post on a tragic topic.

    1. It is tragic. When women aren’t allowed control of their own bodies, right here in the USA … feels like the most restrictive Middle East religions are taking over. Bring on the veils. Take away the driver licenses …

  2. Back to the reactionary future. If said draft, or near facsimile, becomes SCOTUS dictate… then this is just the beginning of many black robbed robberies of hard won and long standing individual and fundamental rights.

    They will go after Griswold, Obergefell, and maybe Loving. Brith control, Gay Marriage, and even Interracial marriage. Can’t find those little societal tidbits in the text of the Constitution,
    can ya?

    1. Nope, not in the Constitution. The right to privacy is, I believe, but that was overrun when govt got between women and their doctors. Where will it end?

  3. I nominate the individual or group who leaked this dreck for the Time Person of the Year, a MacArthur Foundation Genius Grant, and a Nobel Prize. Seriously.

    1. I’m wondering what their intent was. Advance warning? Give the people time to protest? Give the states time to enact laws either pro or con abortion? Not sure I’m awarding any medals because I don’t know the intent, or what the result will be. Violating confidentiality is not on my list of approved activities.

      1. I respect your opinion. I went to Journalism School and have been a member of the “media” for years, and am in favor of things like Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers seeing the light of day. Back then, there was controversy about publication, and one part of the argument/justification was “that the press had a First Amendment right to publish information significant to the people’s understanding of their government’s policy.” I think in the case of Roe v Wade, we the people have a right to understand the workings of our Supreme Court process and policy. Especially in this era of the Gini and Clarence Thomas controversy.

        1. I’m a journalism graduate also, and a retired editor. I’m don’t think this is a case of the public’s right to know or the exposure of some crime we otherwise wouldn’t have known about. It’s the premature release of something that was to become public in the next two months or so anyway. When Supreme Court decisions are handed down, we are routinely given all the supporting arguments, both pro and con.

          Of course, if Alito ends up voting to uphold Roe, he’s going to have a tough time explaining this document. And THAT would be one hell of a story.

          I’m not saying the press didn’t have a right to publish this; I’m saying somebody working for the Supreme Court didn’t have the right to release it.

          1. Got it, as I said before I respect your opinion and also now know where your writing chops originated! I’m an adopted person, and I know fully well that had abortion been legal when I was conceived back in 19-mrmty-mrmp, my 19 year old mother would not have carried me to term and I simply would not exist. I was relinquished for adoption – according to the social worker records – because she would have been disinherited from the family money by her parents. She and my 20 year old father gave me up and then married each other and had my sister within less than a year. Even knowing that legal abortion back then would have meant my demise, I am decidedly pro-choice. It would be a moral crime in my opinion to overturn Roe. And some of the Justices have apparently committed perjury to bring us to this harrowing point. Anyway, I do agree with what you’ve said, great post.

          2. The zealots need to realize that they can be against abortion without being against Roe. It’s very simple — if you oppose abortion, don’t get one. What other people do is their business, not yours. Meantime, Roe just ensures that all women can get the reproductive health care they need.

          3. You have a good point, Susan, about releasing both the pros and cons of a decision at the same time. Still, that complaint is dwarfed by the enormity of the decision itself.

          4. I was just explaining what is the norm for the court; it always releases all the opinions along with its decision. Of course that doesn’t change the impact of the decision itself, which in this case is earth-shaking.

    1. The majority of Americans think abortion rights should be protected. Apparently the will of the people, majority rule, etc., mean nothing. I hate to think what might be next.

      1. Me too. Next I see book-banning, textbooks edited for pro-religion views and history revised for political bias. Oh wait, never mind. That’s already happening.

... and that's my two cents