Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs Wade effectively ending Federal Recognition of a Constitutional right to abortion
Fox News ^ | 06/24/2022

Posted on 06/24/2022 8:17:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

*The U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Roe vs Wade, effectively ending Federal Recognition of a Constitutional right to abortion and giving individual states in the union the power to allow, limit and ban the practice altogether.*

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; US: Wisconsin
KEYWORDS: abortion; dobbsruling; ketanjibrownjackson; mediawingofthednc; panicporn; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; paulryan; plannedparenthood; righttolife; roevswade; scotus; searchandfind; wisconsin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last

1 posted on 06/24/2022 8:17:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

An affirmation of States’ Rights

Its the only way to control Woke DC Fedzilla, and confront the DOJ/KGB


2 posted on 06/24/2022 8:19:03 AM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

...”ending Federal Recognition of a Constitutional right to abortion”

...Gee. They say it like it’s a bad thing. Making it a right WAS the problem. Pregnant women were the only people on earth who could commit murder and not be penalized. “Abortion is the sacrifice of the unborn, on the altar of convenience”. What’s so hard to understand? Keep your damned legs together.


3 posted on 06/24/2022 8:21:32 AM PDT by albie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88
An affirmation of States’ Rights.

No doubt, and this is a great ruling. But I'm not convinced it's really a matter of states' rights. If an unborn baby is really a human being, the protection of its life is a constitutional, hence federal, matter.

4 posted on 06/24/2022 8:21:48 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham ("God is a spirit, and man His means of walking on the earth.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Freakin Roberts!!


5 posted on 06/24/2022 8:21:51 AM PDT by RoseofTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

You can count on a wave of domestic terrorism to sweep the country. The American Cheka under Merrick Garland will stand by passively and do nothing to stop it, but they will do everything in their power to encourage the terrorists.

Needless to say, the Media-Dem Party will also encourage the terrorists.


6 posted on 06/24/2022 8:22:55 AM PDT by euram
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court’s opinion.

Alito’s opinion began with an exploration and criticism of Roe v. Wade and its holding that while states have “a legitimate interest in protecting ‘potential life,’’ this interest was not strong enough to prohibit abortions before the time of fetal viability, understood to be at about 23 weeks into pregnancy.

The Court did not explain the basis for this line, and even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe’s reasoning,” Alito wrote.

Chief Justice John Roberts agreed that the viability line “never made any sense,” but said he would have taken “a more measured course” with this case. Rather than overturn Roe v. Wade altogether, Roberts said he would have continued to recognize a right to get an abortion, and that the right should “extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further.”

The Court’s opinion recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause has been found to guarantee certain rights that are not spelled out in the Constitution, but that those rights are “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Abortion, the Court said, “does not fall within this category,” as “such a right was entirely unknown in American law” until the late 20th century.

The opinion continued to shred the Roe decision, saying it “was egregiously wrong from the start,” and that “[i]ts reasoning was exceptionally weak[.]”

Rather than continue the tradition established by Roe and Case, the Court wrote that it “is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”


7 posted on 06/24/2022 8:23:14 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RoseofTexas

RE: Freakin Roberts!!

Surprisingly, he was one of the six who sided with the majority.

I had expected the decision to be 5-4.


8 posted on 06/24/2022 8:24:32 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: euram

I hope they DO take to the streets and reek chaos it will just show everyone how hypocritical the Jan.6 committee really is!!{


9 posted on 06/24/2022 8:27:11 AM PDT by Trump Girl Kit Cat (Yosemite Sam raising hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Rather than overturn Roe v. Wade altogether, Roberts said he would have continued to recognize a right to get an abortion, and that the right should “extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further.”

Meaningless doublespeak drivel.

10 posted on 06/24/2022 8:27:17 AM PDT by Repealthe17thAmendment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind


11 posted on 06/24/2022 8:27:47 AM PDT by Iron Munro ( Joe Biden - Inventor Of The First New Language since Esperanto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Really bothered by all the headlines. They aren’t taking away a right, just admitting it was never there.


12 posted on 06/24/2022 8:27:49 AM PDT by GMMC0987
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

That’s a Fox News headline???


13 posted on 06/24/2022 8:27:55 AM PDT by Antihero101607
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham
the protection of its life is a constitutional, hence federal, matter.

Where have you been the last 50 years? Has Fed.gov, controlled top-to-bottom by progressives and now woke radicals and their massive intelligence and law-enforcement apparatus done anything but expand abortion?

14 posted on 06/24/2022 8:28:04 AM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
We have a somewhat Originalist and textualist majority on the Supreme Court for the first time in 88 years.

The people are re-learning the importance of limiting the power of the government.

15 posted on 06/24/2022 8:28:27 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I think Roberts was probably a decent HOWEVER the leak caused him to change sides and back the court!!


16 posted on 06/24/2022 8:29:02 AM PDT by Trump Girl Kit Cat (Yosemite Sam raising hell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All
"No doubt, and this is a great ruling. But I'm not convinced it's really a matter of states' rights. If an unborn baby is really a human being, the protection of its life is a constitutional, hence federal, matter."

Indeed.

Right. To. Life.

17 posted on 06/24/2022 8:29:25 AM PDT by TheTimeOfMan (The Eloi unexpectedly protected the Morlocks from rogue Eloi as they themselves prepared to be eaten)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Surprisingly, he was one of the six who sided with the majority.

I still think it's more likely than not that he was the leaker (not to the press, I suspect, but to the white house hoping for leverage and THEY leaked it without his agreement) and if he sided with the majority than he knew the chance to get the ruling he wanted was lost and he made a political decision to sign his name to it for plausible deniability reasons.

18 posted on 06/24/2022 8:29:33 AM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Often wrong, but never in doubt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Roberts joined with a concurring opinion upholding the Mississippi law (6-3). He did not join the other five justices in overturning Roe v. Wade (5-4).


19 posted on 06/24/2022 8:29:40 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
States do not have rights.

States have powers.

There is a large difference.

Saying states have rights is using the Orwellian language of Progressives.

20 posted on 06/24/2022 8:30:23 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-100 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson