re: So now that Roe is gone - will people become more responsible?

quote:

---

Percentage wise blacks have them more often.

---

Yep…. More democrats will now be born in some states.

Certainly not immediately.

But ones capable of learning will realize their actions have consequences now. Can’t go down to the corner store for a late term abortion in a lot of states as of today.

Depending on the standards of the clinic in question, it may be a one way ticket regardless.

quote:

---

will people become more responsible?

---

For those who don't live in an 'abortion friendly' state, they'll at least have to be inconvenienced. Maybe they'll think about that and avoid a next time.

quote:

---

Doubtful. Which as a woman, I don't understand. It's NOT that hard. Really, it's not.

---

It’s not that hard now, but Thomas literally threw out Griswold (which protects the right to birth control) as another case which should be overturned.

quote:

---

with states now governing abortion policy (some will outlaw completely, some will be wide open, most will be in between) will this change behaviors?

---

Drugs are illegal. Is the US seeing record numbers of overdose deaths year after year? Making something illegal does nothing but push ppl to unsafe alternatives.

quote:

---

No a chance

---

Before I take your response seriously:
What did you predict the result of legalizing gay marriage would be?

quote:

---

What did you predict the result of legalizing gay marriage would be?

---

I don’t remember particularly caring at the time. I still don’t really care about whether the gays can get married. In the constitutional sense, I see it as a civil contract that any two willing adults can enter into to enjoy the legal regime that it creates. The EP and P&I clauses protect that IMO.

Totally and completely separate from a religious concept.

Griswold was a substantive due process rights case decided before Roe, and provided that it was unconstitutional to prohibit married couples from obtaining birth control. Subsequent cases have extended that ruling to unmarried people, as well.

Essentially, the substantive due process rights, which Thomas wants to toss, exist in the hazy ether of constitutional law; they exist when and where five justices of the Supreme Court say they exist, as we see with the Dobbs decision today.

But substantive due process rights are more than just about abortion and contraceptives. They also cover things like the right to medical autonomy and the right to raise your children. The thrust of Alito's opinion is that such rights are only protected if the right was one that was "historically and traditionally protected against state interference,"^1 which is why he spends time (or, I should say spent time in the draft opinion, as I have not read the final opinion) on a detour through some of the historical rights which were protected in the 1800s. Because abortion was not a right historically and traditionally protected right (Roe was decided in the 70s), he argues, there is no substantive due process right--read: no constitutional right--to an abortion.

Thomas points out that cases like Griswold (contraception for married couples), Lawrence (unconstitutional to criminalize gay sex), and Obergefell (gay marriage), which are all substantive due process rights cases, are on similarly shaky ground under Alito's reasoning, though Alito specifically disclaims any notion that he would overturn those cases.

Attacks on substantive due process rights are attacks on rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, whether they're rights you agree with or disagree with. It's important to keep in mind that those rights are viewed by our government as constitutionally protected rights only to the extent a majority of the Supreme Court says they do.

^1 Curzan v. Missouri.

quote:

---

No, we'll just hand out more welfare checks going forward.

---

Bingo, taxpayers should not be celebrating today :(