Last week the Supreme Court overturned the controversial 1973 abortion case Roe v. Wade, allowing state legislatures – and voters across the United States – to determine abortion legality at the state level.
This article was originally published on May 3, immediately after a draft opinion from the Supreme Court was leaked to the media. It may not contain the latest information, though it offers a look at what conservative – and liberal – states may do in the wake of the monumental 5-4 decision led by a conservative majority that included three judges appointed by 45th President Donald Trump.
On Monday night, Politico published a leak of a draft opinion from Justice Samuel Alito in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case that is currently being looked at by the Supreme Court. The opinion would repeal Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion across the country.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research group, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Wyoming, have all passed “trigger laws” banning abortions that would take immediate effect in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned.
Alabama, Arizona, Michigan, West Virginia and Wisconsin had also banned abortion prior to the controversial 1973 Supreme Court decision, and could reinstate those laws as soon as the Roe ruling is tossed.
In addition to those 18 states, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio and South Carolina could revisit their anti-abortion laws that had been successfully overturned by courts in the past.
Florida, Indiana, Montana and Nebraska could also take action to protect the unborn based on trends in their recent legislative efforts, according to Guttmacher researchers.
26 states may ban abortion if Roe v Wade is overturned
Should Roe v. Wade be overturned, abortion legality would become a state issue, with each government able to make its own decision.
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Justice Alito wrote in an opinion that Politico described as a “full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision – Planned Parenthood v. Casey – that largely maintained the right.”
“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito continued. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”
SCOTUS has since confirmed the authenticity of the leaked draft opinion, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing an investigation to find the person behind the “egregious” leak.
“We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce – permanent employees and law clerks alike – intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law,” Justice Roberts said. “Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court.”
According to reports, some analysts have claimed that the leak is an attempt to pressure a Supreme Court justice to change their vote on the controversial case. However, Justice Roberts affirmed that the leak would not succeed in undermining “the integrity” of SCOTUS operations.
Should Roe v. Wade be overturned, protection of the unborn would be left up to individual states — and at least 18 states across America would almost immediately ban abortion due to previously-passed “trigger laws.”
Thomas Kauffman
May 6, 2022 at 11:55 am
Considering the actiivites now surfacing about Democrats and the results of the 2020 presidential election, I am not surprised at this so called supreme court leak. I feel this is a deliberate attempt to tilt the 2022 mid-terms by stirring up the leftist population.
Mr Mustashe
June 26, 2022 at 4:07 am
?????
Ben jr
May 6, 2022 at 12:56 pm
Roe v Wade was bad precedent from day one! It wasn’t about abortion, but privacy. Isn’t that special, privacy to murder, because that is what all you women did! Your privacy to murder shouldn’t have trumped my privacy about vaccination status, but the same leftwing dimtards that wanted the “right” to privacy to murder saw no problem with denying same said privacy about someone else’s medical history! Don’t worry, there will still be states that will allow you to continue to murder, though you may have to travel a bit to get to them. And once you go, please STAY you child murdering miscreant!!!
Mr Mustashe
June 26, 2022 at 6:03 am
So, a 13-yrs old female who has been raped by someone who has AIDS, the Corona Virus and who voted for “kitten lover” in 2020, must be forced into labour because some PERV-LIKING SOCIOPSYCHOPATHIC, WOMAN-HATING CONSERVATIVE WANNABE POLITICIAN (who SECRETLY wanks his pet off at home!) believes that compounding the ABUSE (THE CRIME!) received by the VICTIM is OK, and that the concerns about the PERP is a non-starter issue!
And if that’s what you believe… someone’s friend… then there are MILLIONS of voters out there who would wish that YOU were ABORTED, and who– NO DOUBT!– WILL END ANY ATTEMPTS BY PERVS AND ANY PERV-LIKING SOCIOPSYCHOPATHIC, WOMAN-HATING CONSERVATIVE WANNABE POLITICIANS FROM WINNING THEIR COLLUSIVE PERV ARGUMENTS!
BTW, if my memory is serving me correctly, millions of HYPOCRITE conservatives were weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth over having to be obliged to wear a face mask… let alone, be forced to accept a TRUMP-LIKE RAPE, AND CONSERVATIVE POLITICIAN’S MORAL DODGE!… and so, I find it rich– as MILLIONS of Americans will!– that these same ABUSERS and HYPOCRITE JERK-OFFS would want to continue in a campaign of CHILD ABUSE, while weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth over a f-ing mug mask! And, ABUSERS and HYPOCRITE JERK-OFFS which would whip out their “CHRISTIAN WEAPONS” to enforce their individual and collective ABUSIVE and HYPOCRITE JERK-OFF AGENDAS!
https://bit.ly/2qFwqHx… and… https://bit.ly/3381gpu… and… https://bit.ly/2OEuxCM… and lastly, https://bit.ly/2s1bScG.
Was DJ Trump’s “Jane Doe JUSTTEEN rape accuser” paid-off?… (like Trump was alleged to have done with a former hooker [alleged by this guy, https://bit.ly/3MP9URh… you know!… the guy that was sued– BIG TIME!– for making false allegations against a company for “rigging” the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Elections!])… and, if so, then “Jane” should be charged for receiving a bribe, and Donald Trump for offering one!
AND, was Andrew’s “out-of-court” a “Seal” on Billy’s and PHEWTUS’ “haircombing involvement (the which, Gates and PHEWTUS would gladly fund to keep ‘Sealed’!)”?… and will “Max” live to expound her, “yet to be revealed– and hoped for– would-be dyssalacious testimony/ testimonial (and life-threatening, as a ‘COUNTER DESEALING fund offer’ and an ‘OFFICIALLY PENNED early release offer’ by any number of ‘ANTI-GROOMING INTERESTS’ may pose a substantial threat to Billy and to PHEWTUS [or to PHEWTUS’ ‘WHITE House Fixers’, who want ‘their boy’ back on his ‘high horse {at least, somewhere near the rump!}’!]– and, ‘PURE’!)”?
Let me guess… the next thing we’re going to “learn” from MR. PHEWTUS and his WARPED FOLLOWERS is that the voice we ACTUALLY HEARD on the “campaign bus” in 2016, was “audioshopped”!…
https://bbc.in/3x6FkMi
C C R R E E P P!… and, BYE BYE, BILLY BUSH!… and H H E E L L O O, Robert De Niro!
Milo
June 26, 2022 at 9:32 pm
Trollops should try crossing their legs.
Mr Mustashe
June 27, 2022 at 10:20 pm
Let me guess… you’re years old, and like causing a stink!
.
If your mom catches you, she’s going to remove your laptop!
Ted Weiland
May 6, 2022 at 2:58 pm
TENTH AMENDMENT ALERT!
Returning power (via Amendment 10) to the states is NOT the answer for our country. When biblical standards are rejected, state governments are just as wicked as is the federal government.
Our only answer is a return to Yahweh the God of the Bible as America’s Sovereign, His Son as the Savior of the remnant, and His morality as found in His perfect law and altogether righteous judgments (Psalm 19:7-9) as government and society ethical standard.
As an example: Most people considered Justice Scalia a conservative.
QUESTION: What’s the true conservative position regarding in utero infanticide (aka “abortion”)?
ANSWER: The conservative position is that it’s murder as determined by Yahweh, the ONLY One with the authority to make such a determination. Turning the decision over to the States to decide (which was Scalia’s position) is NOT the conservative position.
QUESTION: Why was this Scalia’s position?
ANSWER: Because to Scalia the Constitution was the Supreme Law of the land, rather than the Bible’s immutable/unchanging moral law.
For more, see Chapter 19 “Amendment 10: Counterfeit Powers” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at Bible versus Constitution dot org. Click on the top entry on our Online Books page and scroll down to Chapter 19.
See also blog article “Right, Left, and Center: Who Gets to Decide?” Search title on our Blog.
Then find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.
JOHN MAYOR
June 26, 2022 at 12:05 pm
In the New Testament’s Book of Romans Chapter 13: 1 and 2, we read the following:…
.
1) Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2) Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. [NIV]
.
To the matter… for TRUE Christians, it is clear that we are to be subject to that which is in authority. But, it’s also clear, that the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY within a democratic country– at least!– is a country’s God-allowed respective national constitution!… and which– invariably!– contains Rights and Freedoms (e.g., Freedom of Expression, Press Freedom, Life, Security of the Person and FEDERAL EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS… BUT, ET CETERA!). And to resist such… in keeping with Romans 13: 1 and 2!… IS TO RESIST THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS GRANTED TO A COUNTRY’S PEOPLE THROUGH GOD’S PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY; AND THEREBY, TO RESIST GOD AND HIS HOLY SPIRIT! And in addition to the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY of our national constitutions, is the PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)… the signatories to which, are available for all too see.
.
In the New Testament’s Book of Mark Chapter 3: 23 to 27, we read the following:…
.
23) So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24) If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25) If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26) And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27) In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house…” [NIV]
.
Reader… and if I may!… let me offer up juxtaposed analogous “relevant arguments” and translations of Christ’s words conveyed in Mark 3…
.
1) How can Constitutional Paramountcy drive out Constitutional Paramountcy? 2) If a Constitution’s words be RELATIVE, NON-DEFINITIVE, INCONSISTENT, SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND NON-INTEROPERABLE in the context of it’s̲ entirety, that Constitution can’t stand. 3) If a Government is divided against itself, that Government can’t stand. 4) If a President opposes one’s self and is divided, such a soul can’t stand; that soul’s end has come. 5) In truth, no one can defeat a strong philosophy’s premise without first binding it’s̲ premise. Then one can defeat the strong philosophy’s premise.
.
To close, in keeping with a P̲R̲E̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲I̲S̲I̲T̲E̲ NON-RELATIVE, DEFINITIVE, CONSISTENT, NON-SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND INTEROPERABLE PREMISE OF A CONSTITUTION, A CONSTITUTION THAT CAN’T AVER NATIONAL/ NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW FOR ALL CITIZENS WITHIN THE PURVIEW/ SCOPE OF IT’S̲ MANDATE IS BASED UPON A RELATIVE, NON-DEFINITIVE, INCONSISTENT, SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND NON-INTEROPERABLE PREMISE… AND SO AND THUS, IF LOCAL AND STATE-WIDE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE PURVIEW/ SCOPE OF NATIONAL/ NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND BENEFITS D̲E̲L̲I̲M̲I̲T̲S̲ NATIONAL/ NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW FOR ALL– AND THE CONSTITUTION, IN FACT, SUPPORTS SUCH A DELIMITATION!– THEN THAT CONSTITUTION’S “EGALITARIAN PREMISE” IS FAULTY, AND NATIONAL EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND BENEFITS CAN’T BE REALIZED; AND SO AND THUS, A CONSTITUTION’S PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY (GOD’S PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY!) WOULD BE “SOMEONE’S” RUSEFUL (OR “INADVERTENT”) DEFERENCE TO LOCAL AND STATE-WIDE DIVISIONS! Therefore… and to contrast the immediately aforenoted P̲R̲E̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲I̲S̲I̲T̲E̲ P̲R̲E̲M̲I̲S̲E̲ of a Godly-inspired Constitution… the problem with returning this present Abortion item over to State Legislatures and Legislators for legislative drafting, is that NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS & BENEFITS will– by COMPARTMENTALIZED DEFAULT!– be nearly impossible to uphold. The Constitution’s “egalitarian premise”– GOD’S EGALITARIAN PREMISE!– will be nearly impossible to uphold. And therewith, VIRTUALLY ENTRENCHING A DIVIDED COUNTRY OVER A CONCERN THAT/ WHICH WILL FOSTER CONTINUED THREATS TO NATIONAL UNITY AND HARMONY– PITTING STATE INTERESTS AGAINST STATE INTERESTS!… AND, GIVING DEFERENCE TO SOME, WHO HOLD THAT AMERICA’S CONSTITUTION IS GOVERNED BY THE, “FEDERALIST PAPERS”!
.
Do you understand me reader? Either the SUPREME U.S. Constitution– GOD’S CONSTITUTION AND SUPREME AUTHORITY!– is based upon a P̲R̲E̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲I̲S̲I̲T̲E̲ NON-RELATIVE, DEFINITIVE, CONSISTENT, NON-SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND INTEROPERABLE PREMISE OF NATIONAL/ NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW (E.G., THE SCOTUS!) FOR ALL PEOPLE WITHIN THE PURVIEW/ SCOPE OF IT’S̲ MANDATE, OR “SOMEONE” HAS RUSEFULLY– OR INADVERTENTLY– HANDICAPPED NATIONAL/ NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW FOR EVERYONE! NEVERTHELESS, IF INADVERTENTLY, ONE MUST ASK: HOW COULD GOD I̲N̲A̲D̲V̲E̲R̲T̲E̲N̲T̲L̲Y̲ UNDERMINE HIS OWN P̲R̲E̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲I̲S̲I̲T̲E̲ NON-RELATIVE, DEFINITIVE, CONSISTENT, NON-SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND INTEROPERABLE PREMISE OF NATIONAL/ NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE U̲.S.’S LAW?
.
Incidentally…
.
T̲H̲E̲ ̲F̲E̲D̲E̲R̲A̲L̲I̲S̲T̲ ̲P̲A̲P̲E̲R̲S̲ ̲A̲R̲E̲ ̲N̲O̲T̲ ̲L̲A̲W̲!… they are ESSAYS expressing OPINIONS about a proposed Constitutional framework for the patrons of America, and how this framework could be interpreted (albeit, ESSAY OPINIONS from contributors to this framework). Had all or part of these papers been added as a LEGAL PREAMBLE to the proposed U.S. Constitution, then there’d be no question as to their legitimacy as an OFFICIAL GUIDE re Constitutional interpretation and re the scope of each and every provision to be included in the proposed document… but, these were not included (nor a distilled version of same), because there was an unspoken fear that to do so, would compel entrenched opposition to this, that and the other before the document could be ratified– and because, a FORMAL LEGAL PREAMBLE is no longer a matter of public debate, but a course of legislated action that must either win, or fail. And so, to move the debate into the public arena… and away from the prospect of having the document socially shredded by amassed dissent!… is to invite proactive discourse on ESSAY OPINIONS about a proposed Constitutional proposal, while– all the while– document designers were “feeling the pulses” of “America’s patients” to gauge whether their “designer bedside manners” were either an assist to the document’s ratification, or but blunders that/ which needed further “treatment” before passage could be effected. In my opinion, it was an unfortunate– but necessary– tact(ic) move… but, the drawback, was that the courts would be without an OFFICIAL GUIDE with which to aver DEFINITIVE yeas or nays re issues of Constitutional interpretation and provisional scope… and must either “pull rabbits out of hats”, or give deference to the “Federalist Papers”. And that, became an ongoing Judicial dilemma…
.
“The amount of deference that should be given to The Federalist Papers in constitutional interpretation has always been somewhat controversial. As early as 1819, Chief Justice John Marshall noted in the famous case McCulloch v. Maryland, that ‘the OPINIONS expressed by the authors of that work have been justly SUPPOSED to be entitled to great respect in expounding the Constitution. No tribute can be paid to them WHICH EXCEEDS THEIR MERIT; but in applying their opinions to the cases which may arise in the progress of our government, a RIGHT TO JUDGE of their correctness must be retained.’ In a letter to Thomas Ritchie in 1821, James Madison stated of the Constitution that ‘the LEGITIMATE MEANING of the Instrument must be derived from THE TEXT ITSELF; or if a key is to be sought elsewhere, it must BE NOT IN THE OPINIONS OR INTENTIONS OF THE BODY WHICH PLANNED & PROPOSED THE CONSTITUTION, but in the sense ATTACHED TO IT by the people in their respective State Conventions where it RECD. ALL THE AUTHORITY which it possesses.'” – The Federalist Papers, Wikipedia (see, Judicial use) (Note: the bold lettering is my emphasis.)
.
Nevertheless!… and on a positive note!… now that the American Constitution is in place, all that Americans need do (through their Representatives!) is to ratify a Constitutional Amendment that/ which would entrench all or part of a distilled rendition of the Federalist Papers in a FORMAL LEGAL PREAMBLE. Or, draft a Formal Legal Preamble that would declare: THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION, AND AMERICA’S PARAMOUNT AUTHORITY– AND REGARDLESS OF STATE LAWS!– IS BASED UPON A P̲R̲E̲R̲E̲Q̲U̲I̲S̲I̲T̲E̲ NON-RELATIVE, DEFINITIVE, CONSISTENT, NON-SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND INTEROPERABLE PREMISE OF NATIONWIDE EQUAL PROTECTIONS AND EQUAL BENEFITS BEFORE AND UNDER THE LAW FOR ALL CITIZENS.
.
Reader, despite the cited SEPARATION OF RELIGION AND STATE within the enumerated Sections of the U.S. Constitution, most of us acquainted with the “textual evolution/ contextual evolution” of this document are familiar with yet other opinions of the “founding fathers” that/ which aver a God-centric basis for the document’s manifest existence– and yea, CITE BIBL(IC) PROPHECY. And if this basis be true, then what can we make of– what must we make of!– Romans, Chapter 13: verses 1 and 2?
Nick1
June 27, 2022 at 5:17 am
Republicans lost a critical Presidential election over abortion. Let’s hope they don’t mess up again. Only a few Countries allow late term abortions besides the US, like China and North Korea. We should be better than that. Almost all other Countries have 12 to 16 week rules.
16 weeks should be absolute maximum. If a women cannot decide by then she should be sterilized so she does not do it again. IF the Father is know he should also be sterilized for the same reason.