Posted on 07/12/2018 9:42:34 AM PDT by Morgana
There is a lot of speculation right now about what abortion laws would look like if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
And while abortion activists are fear-mongering with images of coat hangers and talk of back alley abortions, legal scholars say abortions will still be legal in most of the United States if Roe is overturned.
“We think there are 22 states likely to ban abortion without Roe,” Amy Myrick, an attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the Las Vegas Sun. “The threat level is very high now.”
Abortion activists are worried and pro-lifers are hopeful about President Donald Trump’s second nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh. If confirmed by the Senate, Kavanaugh would become the fifth conservative justice on the high court and likely a deciding vote on important cases involving protections for unborn babies.
In 1973, Roe v. Wade and its companion case, Doe v. Bolton, opened the doors to abortion on demand for basically any reason up to birth in America. The cases took away states’ abilities to legally protect unborn babies from abortion, and, if overturned, they would return that power back to the states. With five conservative justices on the Supreme Court, there is a chance of that happening.
For years, legal experts have thrown out predictions about which states may ban abortions and which may continue allowing unborn babies to be aborted.
Here’s more from the report:
As of now, four states — Louisiana, Mississippi and North and South Dakota — have what are known as abortion “trigger laws.” Those laws — passed long after Roe was handed down — would make abortion illegal if and when the Supreme Court were to say Roe is no more.
“They are designed to make abortion illegal immediately,” said Myrick.
Another dozen or so states still have pre-Roe abortion bans on the books.
Some have been formally blocked by the courts, but not repealed. Those bans could, at least in theory, be reinstated, although “someone would have to go into court and ask to lift that injunction,” said Myrick.
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you like this pro-life article, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
States could simply begin enforcing other bans that were never formally blocked, like one in Alabama that makes abortion providers subject to fines and up to a year in jail.
At the same time, Myrick said, “there are 20 states where abortion would probably remain safe and legal.”
Myrick’s estimate of 22 is a liberal one. Just last year, the radical pro-abortion group NARAL predicted 13 states would immediately ban abortions if Roe is overturned.
A previous estimate by the Center for Reproductive Rights predicted that 31 states and the District of Columbia would ban abortions if Roe is overturned. Yet another analysis by attorney Paul Linton in the journal “Issues in Law and Medicine” in 2012 put the estimate at between eight and 11 states, according to research by Dr. Michael New.
Sarah Lipton-Lubet, vice president for reproductive health and rights at the National Partnership for Women and Families, predicted the high court may chip away at Roe rather than overturn it completely, according to the Sun.
She and Myrick pointed to several legal challenges moving through the courts right now that could head to the Supreme Court soon. These include the 15-week abortion bans in Mississippi and Louisiana and the bans on brutal dismemberment abortions that tear unborn babies limb from limb while their hearts are beating. Other cases include abortion clinic regulations and bans on discriminatory abortions based on an unborn baby’s race, gender or disability.
Kavanaugh’s nomination provides hope to pro-lifers and the future of unborn babies’ rights. But no matter what happens at the high court, one thing is certain. Pro-life advocates still have a long road ahead to protect every life, born and unborn, from the brutal violence of abortion.
Sounds like it would still be pretty easy to get an abortion.
Well, by definition, 22 is not most. That said, it will be up the states to pass their own laws if someone should have standing to challenge Roe AND Scotus grants cert.
I fear all it will take is an impoverished soul that cannot afford to travel out of state to get an abortion will sue on the basis of her constitutional rights being infringed based on either the 14th Amendment or the Due Process Clause and we’ll get the modern version of Roe.
Maybe.
This is how social policy in the USA was meant to be made - let the States decide. Its a highly contentious, moral and social issue. Why should 5 people in black robes at SCOTUS decide this social-engineering policy for the entire USA? Especially when the Constitution said absolutely NOTHING about this issue??
Some states would still be legal, same before Roe.
After Roe the left would run shuttle buses to the states with abortions for women to have them. They moan and complain about how much it costs to take them across state lines to kill the baby.
Yea we know what’s coming, am sure they are getting ready for this.
And that is what it boils down to.
NOW and Planned Parenthood don’t want to fight 50 battles. They would rather have a bad SCOTUS decision do their bidding...
I think that is the proper thing to do.
The raging feminazis don’t want choice. They want more abortion. Every time a baby’s brain is jabbed, the great god of feminism smiles and angry women’s hatred for the patriarchy is affirmed.
It’s not on the agenda and won’t be for years...
Legislatures are lazy most of the time, except when animated by an issue to hit them in an upcoming election.
That never means a legislature will let stand a long dormat law that has not been executed in decades, when some outside major change presents the possibility of executing that law again.
My own view of the politics of pro-life and pro-choice political choices is that states wherein abortion “could be immediately banned”, if Roe was repealed, would wind up legislating abortion with very severe restrictions, and mandating no state tax support for it.
Being against abortion myself, I do not suggest that as a recommendation, but merely as how I think the politics will play out. It will leave both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” advocates disappointed, but I think it will return most state legislature incumbants who vote that way to their offices in a following election; primarily because it will be a “middle of the road” choice.
I happen to agree with your assessment. There are few places where it would remain outright banned. The cultural attitudes of America simply do not and will not support a blanket ban.
I would prefer that it was simply banned, but I will settle for more restricted if that’s all I can get.
Simply overturning roe returns it to the states...
A ruling that abortion is fundamentally unconstitutional, ends all abortion.
Neither is likely to happen anytime soon.. the whole abortion thing is a red herring. The odds of any abortion case being taken by the court in the near future is low, let alone in which the entirety of Roe would be
Challenged is almost non existent.
The real domino of the activist court that is likely to fall quickly under a constitutional court will be invented nonsense that religion in the public square is unconstitutional. Cases around this fallacy are almost certainky going to come before the court quickly and with a constitutional and not activist court will almost certainly properly rule that religious actions in public places is Completely constitutional.
The horrible rulings off the 50s 60s and 70s that mandated a government hostile to religion will be over.
That’s the real thing the left fears... rights flowing from God and not Government means they can’t grant or take away rights to achieve their goals
Makes sense to me. And like you I see the abortion thing as a red herring.
Right to Life Sanctuary State or Cities! Image if those on the Right declared (in the same vein as sanctuaries for illegal aliens) Sanctuary States or Cities. Imagine if the citizens of a neighborhood or district or county within a State or City declared itself a Right to Life Sanctuary!
This disgusting part of that statement is the fact that it is true.
Yes, unable to afford a bus ticket but somehow hundreds of thousands in legal fees will become available, and nobody will note the irony. "Poor woman" pawns will always be available to push the agenda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.