Dobbs Won't End the Legal Battle Over Abortion
Liberals won't reconcile themselves to Dobbs, any more than conservatives accepted Roe v. Wade and Casey.
Liberals won't reconcile themselves to Dobbs, any more than conservatives accepted Roe v. Wade and Casey.
In his Dobbs concurrence, the senior associate justice reiterates his outlying views on precedent and his belief that all substantive due process decisions were "demonstrably erroneous."
Both majority and dissenting opinions include extensive discussions of stare decisis. But the truth is whether you think Roe v. Wade should have been preserved on that basis is heavily correlated with whether you think it was wrong in the first place.
If life begins at conception, there are virtually no limits on government surveillance of women in a post-Roe world.
A weird, messy protest reflects a weird, messy future.
The conservative majority's commitments on contraception, sexual intimacy, and same-sex marriage
The other justices declined to join him, but the future of the Supreme Court rulings on those matters remains unclear.
This makes it likely, though not certain, that the Supreme Court will strike down such laws if states enact them.
The complaining student alleged the students' remarks were "harassing and threatening" him because of his conservative "political affiliation" and his "religious beliefs."
He also nixes the idea that states could "retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today's decision takes effect."
The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions, as James Madison explained.
Most states are unlikely to enact bans, but 22 either have them already or probably will soon.
Looking back at how abortion advertising bans played out last century may give us some idea what the future holds for speech about abortion.
The Supreme Court justice is wrong when he says abortion rights aren't deeply rooted in American history.
Plus: Americans' changing opinions of January 6 riots, Texas craft brewer can "party on," and more...
Plus: The editors unveil their wish list for a hypothetical Libertarian president.
Plus: Uvalde cops didn't check classroom door, Texas GOP slides further to the right, telemedicine deregulation in peril, and more...
The Court doesn't decide whether that means they are subject to an "undue burden" test (as under Planned Parenthood v. Casey) or whether there is no right to abortion under the state constitution.
Some fans are now souring on her legacy.
Big rulings are coming soon on school choice, guns, and abortion.
The Biden Administration is apparently considering a range of responses should te Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.
Tensions won’t simmer down until Americans stop fearing power in the hands of enemies.
Plus: Michigan prisons ban Spanish and Swahili dictionaries, a win against New York's ban on "unauthorized" legal advice, and more...
Questions about the scope of federal power will remain.
An assessment of claims that Justice Alito's draft opinion rests on historical error, provides no meaningful basis for distinguishing abortion from other unenumerated rights, and forecloses constitutional protection of the mother's life.
This has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.
The former Associate Justice joins those condemning the leak of a draft opinion.
A prominent progressive law professor challenges some of the prevailing orthodoxy on Roe, Dobbs, and Supreme Court precedent.
Anti-abortion interstate travel bans would have multiple constitutional defects.
Without citing any constitutional authority to dictate state abortion policies, the bill would have overridden regulations that have been upheld or have yet to be tested.
Liberal states don't want to treat abortion as a personal, private choice either. Instead, blue state policy makers want to spend tax dollars subsidizing and promoting it.
The last 50 years have been marked by a remarkably stable social consensus balancing the rights of women and fetuses. Let's not throw that away.
Plus: Texas' social media law goes back into effect, inflation worries voters, and more...
Americans cannot be neatly divided into two sides, and they do not necessarily understand the implications of Roe v. Wade.
The abortion precedent has faced withering criticism, including damning appraisals by pro-choice legal scholars, for half a century.
The answer is probably "no." But the federal government could more easily ban such transactions.
Plus: ruminations on public health, misinformation, and media literacy
Tax loopholes for corporations end up making it easier for politicians like Rubio to meddle in private decision making.
The constitutional scholar on abortion, Sam Alito, and the future of federalism
Plus: Elon Musk's plans for Twitter, officials want to tax NFTs, and more...
Understanding state regulatory powers at the time of the founding.
Stop government interference in reproduction, medical decisions, gun ownership, drug use, and more.
There is much, much less in the leaked draft than meets the eye
The justice overlooks the long American tradition of pharmacological freedom and the dubious constitutional basis for federal bans.
The forgotten abortion politics of the pre-Roe era
Reason is an independent, audience-supported media organization. Your investment helps us reach millions of people every month.
Yes, I’ll invest in Reason’s growth! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour donation supports the journalism that questions big-government promises and exposes failed ideas.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks