Do Americans Who Support Roe v. Wade Understand Its Implications?
Although recent polls show a majority thinks the abortion precedent should be preserved, some respondents seem confused about what that would mean.
Although recent polls show a majority thinks the abortion precedent should be preserved, some respondents seem confused about what that would mean.
Fewer Americans would be forced to live under a legal regime, imposed from on high, that is contrary to their convictions on a matter of life and death.
Plus: How abortion used to be less partisan, NFT sales have plummeted, and more...
Abortion is likely to remain legal in most states, and workarounds will mitigate the effects of bans.
Under current Supreme Court precedent, the answer is probably "yes." But that precedent might not hold, thanks in part to Clarence Thomas.
If the leaker's identity is ever revealed, he or she will face serious professional and reputational sanctions. There's no need to wish for criminal punishments too.
Gorsuch just penned an important pro-LGBT decision two years ago. Americans are largely not interested in relitigating this issue.
The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions.
But the leaked opinion is not “the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”
Plus: Boston rebuked for rejecting Christian flag, Google will remove more personal information, and more...
The Pharmacy Access Act is good policy stuck in legislative limbo.
Plus: The end of travel mask mandates, pundits out of touch with how normies use social media, and more...
Starr County District Attorney Gocha Allen Ramirez has yet to explain how this egregious error escaped his notice.
As Starr County District Attorney Gocha Allen Ramirez belatedly conceded, that charge is explicitly prohibited by the Texas Penal Code.
Plus: An index of school book bans, new "ghost gun" regulations, and more...
Plus: Panhandling is free speech, Biden may extend student loan repayment moratorium, Florida's wasteful defense of unconstitutional social media law, and more...
Plus: Masculinity tied to inflated IQ estimates, contempt for Warren's crypto bill, and more...
Although a Texas Supreme Court ruling ended the main challenge to the law, other cases could ultimately block its enforcement.
But the bill is still a mess.
Opponents of this dangerous law have a variety of options left to pursue in state and federal courts, despite their recent defeat in the Texas Supreme Court.
The experience in Texas shows that workarounds pose daunting obstacles to such laws.
Plus: free speech history, against regulating social media like phone companies, and more...
The article explains why SB 8 potentially poses a threat to constitutional rights far beyond the abortion context, and how future court decisions could potentially mitigate it.
If it is upheld, state legislators easily could use the strategy embodied in S.B. 8 to attack other rights the Supreme Court has recognized.
Politicians and cops found creative ways to dodge responsibility in 2021.
Recent articles in the Texas Monthy and the New York Times provide some useful insight on why Texas has been gaining migrants at such a high rate.
Federal regulators have permanently lifted a requirement that mifepristone be dispensed in person.
Gavin Newsom is exploring legislation to authorize private civil actions against people who sell "assault weapons" or gun kits.
In response to the Supreme Court's ruling largely precluding pre-enforcement challenge of the Texas abortion law, Governor Newsom calls for similar action on guns.
Things are far from completely clear. But Justice Gorsuch's opinion may give preenforcement challenges to SB 8 and other similar laws a good deal more wiggle room than many think.
The Court allowed claims against health care regulators to proceed, but that will not prevent the private civil actions authorized by the law.
District Court Judge David Peeples focused on the law's "unique and unprecedented" enforcement mechanism rather than abortion rights.
The Court rules that the lawsuit against SB 8 can proceed by targeting state licensing officials. But the implications for future cases are far from completely clear.
There's no general federal right to them; they are often available when a law is enforced by government officials, but generally not as to laws in which private citizens sue (whether over abortion, speech, religious exercise, gun ownership or sales, or anything else).
The private litigation against some defendants may proceed, but the federal lawsuit is gone.
The ruling is mostly based on the Texas state constitution and probably will not affect the federal case challenging SB 8, currently before the Supreme Court. But it makes some notable points, nonetheless.
Flagging some interesting blog posts on the question.
Plus: A reminder to Bill de Blasio of what "incentive" really means
Absent Roe, current Supreme Court precedent likely gives the federal government considerable power to either restrict or protect abortion rights. But that precedent could potentially be limited in ways advocated by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, an unlikely potential savior of abortion rights!
“All of those…just come out of Lochner.”
Plus: SCOTUS hears oral arguments in landmark abortion case, supply chain bottlenecks and labor shortages are holding back economic growth, and more...
The justices may find it difficult to uphold Mississippi's abortion ban without overturning Roe v. Wade.
The oft-heard argument that something isn't "written in the Constitution" is not as compelling as it might seem. Sometimes, it's outright false.
The "viability" rule is arbitrary. So are the alternatives.
The argument made by Finnis, George, Hammer and others, that abortion is unconstitutional is not supported by text or history.
A delayed, but hopefully still helpful final rejoinder to Stephen Sachs.