On the constitutionality of “codifying” Roe
That seems to be the new buzzword on the left: we’re going to “codify” Roe – meaning pass a statute making it illegal for states to ban or modify abortion except in whatever ways the Congressional statute allows.
This seems to be unconstitutional to me, if Roe is declared unconstitutional on the basis of abortion regulation being a state power rather than a federal one. Why would a statute be any different? And yes, they would try to say it’s a regulation of interstate commerce, but I don’t think that would hold up with the conservative justices on the Court these days, nor should it.
At any rate, the Democrats know the bill won’t pass. It can’t get past the filibuster and the filibuster apparently will hold, plus not all the Democrats would vote for it (looking at you, Joe Manchin) even if it somehow were to get past the filibuster. And if Republicans take over the Senate, they could just repeal it again.
The proper avenue would be a constitutional amendment, as I’ve stated before. But the country is too split for that to work out, as far as I can see, and I think the Democrats and also the Republicans see it too. There’s a history of trying, however – on the part of the Republicans post-Roe.
One of those anti-abortion amendments was supported by guess who in 1973:
After Biden joined the Senate in 1973, he voted for a failed constitutional amendment that would have allowed states to overturn the court’s Roe ruling. In a Washingtonian magazine interview at the time, he said of Roe: “I think it went too far. I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.”
If you’re interested in the various efforts to pass a Human Life Amendment, please see this.
I suppose the general strategy of literally threatening the lives of the justices, “calling to arms” the ‘LGBTQ+’ community, and otherwise ceaselessly braying like insufferable jackasses at every opportunity may not win much support either, but that doesn’t mean they won’t do it anyway.
After Roe, Here Are Seven More Precedents the Post-Trump Supreme Court Should Smash
Wickard isn’t first on the list (that’s Bakke), but it’s on there.
I could see how it could be legally upheld.
If it was limited to preventing punishment for moving between states to obtain one.
To me that would clearly be a (gruesome) interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.
Just another example of Biden swaying with what he perceives to be the prevailing winds.
This kind of controversial topic is far better left to legislative action in the various states.
Republicans may take over the Senate, but they won’t have enough votes to override a veto. They won’t be able to repeal anything until 2025 when they have the presidency too.
Case law has made such a hash of the commerce clause that who knows what appellate courts will sustain. A federal law prohibiting a state government from exercising it’s general police power is not something that should be permissible in any federal system.
An appropriate set of federal statutes on the subject would concern two distinct issues: (1a) the provision of abortion by employees of federal agencies or government corporations affiliated with the federal government; (1b) the financing of abortion by federal insurance plans, vouchers, and the like; (2a) the contracting for abortion services between providers in one jurisdiction and patrons in another; (2b) the permission to establish a practice which is domiciled in multiple jurisdictions.
(A proper substantive law would debar all four practices).
In 1973, Biden said of Roe: “I think it went too far. I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.”
Even back then the man was a third rate intellect. If the fetus is simply part of her body and not a person until after birth, then she is the only person with the right to determine its fate. If it is a baby, a separate person in temporary residence, then she has no right to deny the baby’s right to life.
Hes been a fool often, proven a knave after, the tool of literally demonic creatures who desire sacrifice to their pagan gods while actual children starve for lack of formula
Sorry if this has already been answered…
However, if the Supremes officially strike Roe down, what happens?
My guess is nothing changes immediately, but pitched battles begin at the state-level and I bet the action gets pretty wild, pretty quickly. Hard to predict the specifics.
Miguel @ 8:54 pm: Well said!
If a smart person was in the WH,
I’d expect an emergency act issued, to do a “warp speed” on formula. Like Trump did for ventilators.
Sdferr: Thank you for sharing that Revolver News piece!
“…but that doesn’t mean they won’t do it anyway.”
They’re Jacobins (starting with the “POTUS” right on down through the cabinet and continuing the descent to the lowliest loyal storm-troopers AKA antifa):
File under: “We are the cutting edge of morality, the epitome of decency, the defenders of justice. We don’t need no stinkin’ laws to tell us what to do”….
Related:
“Pelosi Encourages Protesters’ ‘Righteous Anger’ in Marching Illegally in Front of Justices’ Homes”—
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2022/05/10/pelosi-encourages-protesters-righteous-anger-in-marching-illegally-in-front-of-justices-homes-n1596575
Yep, Violence and Intimidation ‘R Us…
@Marv – no “warp speed” needed… just need to tell the FDA to authorize the plant to restart production.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10801581/FDA-refuses-say-baby-formula-plant-reopen-despite-companys-claims-facility-safe.html
However, despite the findings of the investigation, the plant remains shuttered nearly three months later, fueling the nationwide baby formula shortage.
The FDA – which said it found food safety violations at the plant, as well as five strains of Cronobacter, a bacteria that can cause blood infections and meningitis – has refused to say when the plant can resume operations.
Not another “Biden”-choreographed crisis…?!
(It does seem to be “his” magic formula….)
OTOH, maybe the plant will open towards election, “proving” that “Biden” is making the interests of the citizenry “his” top priority…
I subscribe to the Food Alerts Newsletter – from which I have mostly learned that everything you eat will kill you – and they have been following the baby formula recall.
The plant that produced the tainted product was not being a Good Neighbor.
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2022/04/publishers-platform-mr-abbott-you-are-going-to-jail-for-manufacturing-tainted-infant-formula/?utm_source=Food+Safety+News&utm_campaign=5e83589e77-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f46cc10150-5e83589e77-40135207
There is also this — with the caveat that there is really no way to validate ANY of the information thrown around the web. However, there is a lot of precedent for the Democrat-Media-complex either creating or hyping a crisis if there is any benefit in it for the Left.
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2022/05/fda-says-there-is-plenty-of-infant-formula-despite-recall-of-similac-other-brands/
The vote against the Democrats’ kill babies bill was 51 to 49 with Manchin and all the Republicans voting against. The interesting part is that the Democrats in endangered seats, Kelly in AZ Cortez masto in NV voted for it
I dunno, AesopFan. I just read a couple of reports on baby formula at the WSJ. The bacteria found at the Abbott plant was not found in cans of formula; the recall was to be on the safe side. The strains of bacteria found in sick infants did not match the strain found in the Abbott plant. Apparently it’s easy to get bacteria into formula in home kitchens.
I suspect, in addition to all the supply chain problems and the voluntary recall, that there’s a certain amount of overbuying going on by parents who see the headlines and are concerned.
Related comment by Professor David Bernstein on why he believed Roe was able to pass in 1973: A misunderstanding by Justice Blackmun…
https://twitter.com/ProfDBernstein/status/1524136036435116040
H/T Lee Smith twitter feed.
I think Bernstein’s referring to biographical material. If that’s correct, it should sink Blackmun’s reputation as a jurist with anyone who seeks integrity in jurisprudence. Of course, people who do are no longer to be found in the Democratic Party.
To tell you the truth, the whole thing sounds preposterous (not that I’m an expert or anything).
The point is: Why should a Supreme Court Justice base a legal opinion/ruling on that kind of specious ASSUMPTION (or “reading” of trends)?
I suppose it’s a possibility, but it’s certainly bizarre.
The problem here is that Bernstein is generally reliable (as far as I know)….
Regarding the baby formula shortage, I wonder if “Biden” is trying to send a message….
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/msm-warns-against-homemade-baby-formula-manufacturer-says-least-two-months-delay
(No doubt that message will be quite a bit more clear when the Democrats go all out promoting post-pregnancy “abortions”…just to show those Deplorable, Insurrectionist Enemies of America whom they’re really up against…)
That story about Justice Blackmun strikes me as eminently believable. Recall that Ginsburg, later, said she thought that, at the time of the ruling, the need to have less procreation from certain classes of people had something to do with the Court’s thinking.
The interesting part is that the Democrats in endangered seats, Kelly in AZ Cortez masto in NV voted for it
Party discipline’s pretty harsh in Congress nowadays. They may also be anxious about offending donors or primary voters. And that may be what they actually think.