Poll: People Oppose Overruling Roe, But Favor 15-Week Abortion Ban

Polling data reveals people have no clue what Roe and Casey actually say.

|

Marquette released a new poll about the Supreme Court and abortion. The results are in tension: people favor sustaining Roe, but also favor Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban.

Nearly 50% majority of respondents are opposed to overruling Roe, nearly a third do not know enough to answer the question, and about 20% favor overruling the case.

Twenty-one percent favor overturning Roe, while 47% are opposed to ending this right to abortion. Despite the intensity of political arguments over Roe for nearly 50 years, 32% say they haven't heard anything or haven't heard enough about this issue to have an opinion.

I suspect many of the people who favor keeping Roe do not know what the case actually held. Indeed, most students have no clue what Roe and Casey held till we study those cases.

Look no further than the questioning on Dobbs. More people support, than oppose the fifteen-week abortion ban. And a third of respondents have no opinion.

Thus, survey respondents were asked if they would favor or oppose a ruling to "uphold a state law that (except in cases of medical emergencies or fetal abnormalities) bans abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy" or if they haven't heard enough about this to have an opinion. Thirty-seven percent favor a decision upholding such a law, while 32% would oppose such a ruling and 30% say they haven't heard enough. In September, 40% favored upholding such a law, 34% opposed such a law, and 27% said they hadn't heard enough.

Thus there is a tension:

Respondents prefer not to overturn Roe, by greater than a 2-1 ratio (47%-21%), but, at the same time, are slightly more willing to accept a 15-week ban than they are opposed to doing so. This is in line with much national polling on abortion over the years, which consistently finds support for maintaining Roe and a right to an abortion but accepts a variety of restrictions including on the timing of abortions, as in this case.

For those Justices who follow the Gallup-poll version of stare decisis, these numbers will no doubt support the dreaded middle ground, where the Court reaffirms Roe in name, but rewrites the test to permit a fifteen week abortion ban. We are left with Casey the sequel.

NEXT: Administration Trying to Bully a Professor at Indiana?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. National polls are stupid. This country isn't remotely a democracy, gerrymandering, the EC, the Senate, etc., makes plain that the only polls that are important are those about the minority that rules us.

    And conservatives LOVE it.

    1. Issue polling is garbage, but conservative political experts have real numbers (as do liberal political experts) and let's just say there's a reason that in the Presidential race, Republican candidates don't mention their desire to ban abortion in their ads or on the stump.

      Real public opinion is very close to the two polls that Blackman miscites- Americans favor significant restrictions on abortion but oppose a ban.

      1. "miscites"?

        He says what that you allege is this?

        1. He miscites them as if they are inconsistent with each other.

      2. "and let's just say there's a reason that in the Presidential race, Republican candidates don't mention their desire to ban abortion in their ads or on the stump."

        Because Republican candidates are, culturally, not really the same group as Republican voters, and tend to actually have more in common with Democratic candidates than they do the people they're asking to vote for them.

        1. Nope, Brett, that's not it. It's because an easy way to get 40% or less of the presidential vote is to campaign on banning abortions.

          1. "get 40% or less"

            You have zero evidence for this amazing assertion. Its wishcasting.

            1. Actually, I know a lot about the internal polling of parties on the abortion issue. It's accurate.

              Pro-lifers tried to put an abortion ban on the ballot in South Dakota, one of the most conservative states in the country, and it was voted down.'

              I know it is a great portion of you guys' identity that you aren't extremists, but yes, you are extremists. I am not saying that America wants a pro-choice nirvana- the public likes restrictions on abortion. But only a tiny number of people want to ban it.

  2. "I suspect many of the people who favor keeping Roe do not know what the case actually held. Indeed, most students have no clue what Roe and Casey held till we study thsoe [sic] cases."

    So Prof. Blackman could have easily written, "I suspect many of the people who favor overturning Roe do not know what the case actually held."

    1. While its probably true that most who support overturning Roe don't know what the case actually held, I suspect that knowing what it held would only make make them support overturning more vehemently

  3. "Polling data reveals people have no clue what Roe and Casey actually say."

    Issue polls are trash, no exceptions.

    1. "Polling data reveals people have no clue"

      That's all you really need here

  4. How are these polls in conflict, Josh? It's entirely possible for 47% of people to be in favor of upholding Roe, while 37% of people are in favor of a 15 week abortion ban. You seem to be thrown off by the large number of people without an opinion, but it is entirely possible for people who didn't have an opinion on Roe to be in favor of a 15 week abortion ban, and for other people who are in favor of upholding Roe to hedge on a 15 week ban and say they don't have an opinion. There's no tension.

    Imagine taking a topic as easy to prove as "laypeople don't understand legal nuance" and screwing it up this badly.

    1. While I agree with Bob and Apedad that issue polls are generally trash, and also agree with the general proposition that people don't understand Roe (let alone Casey), I also agree that these two results need not be in tension with each other. I also find it off-putting that it's once again not really a post about what it purports to be about, but is just another chance to snark at a justice or two.

    2. Glad somebody said it so I didn't have to. Further, it all depends on how you define "overruling Roe." One can be against overruling Roe's core holding that there is a constitutional right to abortion access but still favor a more limited version of that right consistent with a 15-week abortion ban. But Blackman reserves all sense of nuance for those who favor his own positions.

      1. Same issue involved in “preserving Roe.” You can interpret that the way (for example) Chief Justice Burger did in his concurrance, when he said Roe did not stand for the proposition that there is a right to abortion on demand. You can interpret Roe as just saying the state can’t absolutely prohibit abortion.

        1. I suspect that Chief Justice Burger concurred in Roe to keep Justice Douglas from assigning the opinion of the court to himself.

    3. "Imagine taking a topic as easy to prove as "laypeople don't understand legal nuance" and screwing it up this badly."

      You must not read his work much

    4. Agree. Professor Blackman is simply mistaken in reading these results as being inconsistent.

  5. Which issue will be seen to have most directly precipitated enlargement of the Supreme Court:

    ___ Abortion

    ___ Guns

    ___ Voting rights

    ___ Bigotry (racism, gay-bashing, misogyny, xenophobia, etc.)

    ___ Pandemic management

    ___ Partisanship/gridlock/election results

    ___ Special privilege for (certain) religion

    1. How would gridlock encourage court packing/reform?

      1. By motivating those who perceive an obstinate minority to be an unreasonable obstacle to functioning government to eliminate or modify the procedural and structural points that enable the obstinacy and gridlock.

        This could resemble an ice jam, which can impede flow substantially but also can end quickly and severely. In this context, the results of a dam break could involve relatively rapid elimination or revision of the filibuster rules; enlargement of the federal Supreme, Circuit, and District courts; enlargement of the House (with it, the Electoral College); admission of two or three states; a new Voting Rights Act; and perhaps other measures to diminish undeserved structural amplification of rural (and White) votes and voices, which has intensified over time.

        1. I would think you'd be grateful to the Supreme Court for granting the country gay marriage, transgender and sexual-orientation rights, and federal supremacy (stomping on clinger state governments which allow the use of home-grown ganja).

          1. How would adding justices -- to arrange a Court that resembles modern America more than it does the Federalist Society -- reflect a lack of gratitude?

            1. If you're not content with what they've given you already, when *will* you be content?

              Or are you trying to be content-neutral?

              1. You figure progress has (or should be) halted?

                I do not.

                1. "Progress," in this context, must have a goal though. Surely there must come a point when everything that should be legal is legal and everything that should be illegal is illegal.

  6. I'm pro overturning Roe, because the decision has no basis in the history or text of the constitution. However, I'm pro-abortion as they come, if it was up to me you could get an abortion at a drive through (along with a payday loan and an assault weapon). There's no contradiction, it's just that I accept the constitution doesn't magically implement my policy preferences.

    1. I like the idea of a 'right to privacy'. I just wish it existed for more than just the purpose of killing babies.

      1. It also protects your right to marry a person of your choice, to engage in sodomy, to obtain and use contraceptives, to have children, to raise your children in a manner you deem fit. It ought to be extended to doctor-assisted suicide and the use of recreational drugs, but for some reason the judges your elected representatives put on the courts to reverse Roe don’t seem to be interested in extending the right to privacy that way.

        Like, it’s a strange critique. “The right to privacy is only about abortion, wah!” There’s a reason it’s that way, and it’s not the left’s fault,

        1. There are plenty on the left who oppose recreational drugs, doctor-assisted suicide (not to mention any suicide undertaken in the context of a full right to privacy) and they certainly oppose people raising children in a manner the parents see fit (not to be confused with a manner the left sees fit)

          So yeah, the left is no friend to a right to privacy either

  7. SPECIFIC ABORTION POLICYMAKERS & SYCOPHANCY

    Re: "just another chance to snark at a justice or two."

    So what? They are members of the supreme council on national abortion policy in the USA. Why should they be immune to free speech activity that's something other than adulatory or congratulatory? Not to mention that they are not accounable at the ballot box.

  8. The deal is that Prof. Blackman holds an extremist, unpopular position (that Roe should be overturned and abortions should be banned). We will call this the "bailey".

    So Prof. Blackman decides to talk about a different position that polls better (that legal abortions should be cabined to early in a pregnancy). We will call this the "motte".

    Notice how Prof. Blackman retreats to the motte because he doesn't want to have to defend the bailey.

    1. Blackman is an intellectual coward. I invited him to my school to participate in a panel. Rather than listen to the other panelists, he sat there eating pizza while surfing the web. Rather than responding to the other panelists, he preferred to make a buffoon out of himself.

      1. BAD BOY JOSH

        And how is this anything other than an ad-hominem?

        Okay, so digging into pizza during a Zoom session is bad manners. -- Duh. Wouldn't be allowed at oral argument in the Texas Supreme Court. But coffee-sipping passes decorum muster. Members themselves do it. Seen it the raised mug. It's on what used to be called tape.

        Probably not okay in the nonvirtual courtroom. Clear water only. Spillage avoidance rationale. But in a conference room? How is that anything but a matter of manners and etiquette? And whattabout luncheons cum mini-lecture? Or a small-scale brown bag session? Just avoid shaking hands post-Salami contact! Or wipe your filthy fingers first with a napkin before making man-to-man digital contact, not to mention hetero greetings. Reasonable under the average academic standard of contamination? Just head to the loo: H20 on tap if not a good squirt of whack-all-germs disinfectant.

        You don't have to agree with Josh the Misnomered Blackman or denigrate his Southern law school to acknowledge that he is very bright and super-productive. A publicity seeker? -- Okay, so what? At least he gets out of the proverbial ivory tower.

        A lot of academic deadwood just keeps floating.

        1. He's bright and super-productive, which is exactly why it is so distressing that he is such a hack sometimes.

          It's actually more of a disappointment when brilliant people aspire to nothing higher than political hackery. It's the same disappointment I've had with Laurence Tribe lately.

          1. Having read many of Blackman's posts, I see no evidence that he is particularly bright.

            I think you are going on "He's a professor of Constitutional law, so he must be bright," but that doesn't hold. It's a conceit of other legal academics.

        2. I mean, it's framed as an ad hominem. It's not like the windup promised something else.

        3. If you find my description of what Josh did to be "ad hom", that's fine with me, I don't really care. He posted the video on his own YouTube. Feel free to judge on your own.

          "Okay, so digging into pizza during a Zoom session is bad manners. -- Duh. Wouldn't be allowed at oral argument in the Texas Supreme Court. But coffee-sipping passes decorum muster. Members themselves do it. Seen it the raised mug. It's on what used to be called tape."

          This was pre-covid, it was an in-person panel and for what it's worth, I put on a lot of panels and he was the only panelist to ever eat during a panel (also in the top 5 by weight, maybe that's just a coincidence). And it was really more the browsing the internet on his laptop while everyone else spoke that was incredibly rude and unbecoming of his character, and therefor a poor reflection upon himself.

          "Probably not okay in the nonvirtual courtroom. Clear water only. Spillage avoidance rationale. But in a conference room? How is that anything but a matter of manners and etiquette? And whattabout luncheons cum mini-lecture? Or a small-scale brown bag session? Just avoid shaking hands post-Salami contact! Or wipe your filthy fingers first with a napkin before making man-to-man digital contact, not to mention hetero greetings. Reasonable under the average academic standard of contamination? Just head to the loo: H20 on tap if not a good squirt of whack-all-germs disinfectant."

          It's pretty simple. If you are invited to a panel, participate in the panel instead of pretending that when it's not your turn to talk that it is okay to eat pizza and surf the web. It's not as if I've ever seen anyone else behave the way he did during my time in law school.

          "You don't have to agree with Josh the Misnomered Blackman or denigrate his Southern law school to acknowledge that he is very bright and super-productive. A publicity seeker? -- Okay, so what? At least he gets out of the proverbial ivory tower."

          To be honest, he's a fucking moron and you just might be too.

          1. I don't believe a word of this rant about how he allegedly behaved.

            Maybe the professor will give you tickets to his federal court installation next decade or so.

            1. Just not enough poorly educated racists, misogynists, superstitious gay-bashers, disaffected clingers, and selfish xenophobes left in modern America to put Prof. Blackman on a federal court. And our great country improves each day, becoming less religious, less rural, less bigoted, and less White -- and therefore less likely to elect a Republican to national office.

              Prof. Blackman could get an appointment in some hicks-and-sticks state, though. Similarly, he can't get a job at a good law school, but he found a bottom-of-the-barrel yahoo factory willing to take him.

              1. Thanks ... you guys giving me a good late-nite laugh. ... esp. the yahoo factory one. We gotta bunch of state judges from there, you know, and ex-Tex Supreme Eva Guzman, who is currently seeking to beat AG Ken Paxton in the GOP primary (among others), got her JD there (South Texas College of Law 1989). Until they moved into the refurbished-back-to-original Harris County 1910 Courthouse, our two courts of appeals were lording in the same Downtown office building on San Jacinto Street. That included Guzman during her stint on the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. Lawrence v. Texas came through there (in 2001) and many other notable ones.

            2. Go watch the videos on his youtube you fucking rube

  9. It's my personal observation that the vast majority of people do not know what Roe vs Wade said. Some of the loudest voices I have heard claimed that overturning this would force rape victims to carry to term, which was never the law. Listening to the vitriol, it seems many think it the only separation between us and mandatory sex slavery of all fertile women, ala the Handmaid's Tale.

    1. I have heard claimed that overturning this would force rape victims to carry to term, which was never the law.

      Well, that's completely incorrect, which is pretty funny in a post talking about most people not knowing what they're talking about.

      Prior to Roe, a significant majority of states did not allow abortion under any circumstances. 13 or 14 states had an exception for rape, and 4 had made abortion generally available.

      1. I'm afraid old Ben is probably woefully unaware of the "trigger abortion" laws that states already have passed if Roe is overturned.

        But hey- it didn't stop him from loudly declaring his ignorance anyhow.

  10. This is the general problem with polling. Unless an issue is particularly clear cut and in everybody's face, most people don't actually know enough about it to have formulated a consistent position.

    But they'll still answer your questions if you ask about it...

    Pollsters are well aware of this. The good ones go to desperate lengths to try to measure real opinions. The bad ones take advantage of it to manufacture 'opinions'.

    1. "The good ones go to desperate lengths to try to measure real opinions."

      But there aren't too many of those:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA&t=61s

  11. Um, Prof. Blackman, you might want to update the Marquette link.

    Unless "Advancing Jewish Thought" was your true goal here.

  12. As Stephen Carter put it long ago in the New Yorker, observers both legal and academic are flummoxed because Americans hold contradictory attitudes towards abortion. (For example: life begins at conception, yet allow abortion if rape or incest.) We want these attitudes to make sense but for the great majority of Americans they simply don’t.

    1. Apparently ACB got hard nips when Bush ordered “Shock and Awe” to slaughter Muslim babies…there is no contradiction in a pro-lifer supporting killing rape babies just like there is no contradiction in a pro-lifer supporting Bush’s slaughter of the Muslim innocents.

  13. The problem here is that the polling reflects people feelings but not there opinion in the actual circumstance. I suggest a more realistic poll would ask questions like:

    1. Would you want abortion to be legal if your teenage daughter was pregnant?
    2. Should abortion be legal when a pregnancy threatens the mothers health and before the baby can survive outside the uterus?
    3. Should abortion be legal when the fetus has health issues that are incompatible with life or that will very much affect the babies quality of life?

    I suspect that facing these issues people feelings on abortion might be quite different.

      1. I don't understand your objection. There's a reason why abortion is the Right's favor cause. It is the most consumer-friendly piety available in the marketplace today. For many people the issue involves no difficult choices, considered thought or awkward sacrifices, simply pitting wanton hussies against cherubic proto-baby zygotes. What could be more user friendly, righteous-wise?

        Seems to me that Moderation4ever's questions grounds the debate considerably. They might do away with some of the hypocritical posturing that sees people claim they're against vaccines because of a fetal cell line a half-century old.

        1. "For many people the issue involves no difficult choices, considered thought or awkward sacrifices"

          ...wait, which side are you referring to? Which side believes in difficult choices and sacrifices?

          If you are interested in push polls for abortion, how about this:

          -Do you want it to be legal for an abortionist to kill your child or grandchildren?

          -Do you think abortionists should be able to partially remove your child or grandchild from the womb and suck out its brains?

          -Are you troubled by the disproportionate amount of abortions of female and people-of-color babies?

          -Do you believe nurses should be fired for refusing to perform abortions on healthy babies?

          -Do you wish to kill the children of rapists, bearing in mind that it would be illegal to execute the rapist himself?

          -etc.

          -

          1. Uh huh. The problem, Cal, is all "leading questions" are not made the same. Moderation's seem a damn-site more grounded in real people's lives than yours, but isn't the pro-choice side more that way as a general rule? Last I heard, anti-choice folk were pushing "abortion" as anything than frustrates a fertilized egg from implantation in the womb, a definition that makes God the most prolific abortionist by far.

            A sampling of your "questions" :

            Do you want it to be legal for an abortionist to kill your child or grandchildren? Sure, but I draw the line at abortionists traveling back thru time to kill my grandparents.

            Are you troubled by the disproportionate amount of abortions of female and people-of-color babies? I'm untroubled at people-of-color choosing whether or not to have a baby (being not remotely in charge of people-of-color's decision on that point).

            Do you wish to kill the children of rapists, bearing in mind that it would be illegal to execute the rapist himself? Not in the least, particularly given it's not my job anyway (I'm an architect!). However, the wife, girlfriend, or victim of a rapist should have the choice whether to bear a child (especially the latter)

            1. "Do you want it to be legal for an abortionist to kill your child or grandchildren? Sure, but I draw the line at abortionists traveling back thru time to kill my grandparents."

              I'm afraid I don't see how you've discredited the question or shown it less reality-based than M4E's.

            2. "Last I heard, anti-choice folk were pushing "abortion" as anything than frustrates a fertilized egg from implantation in the womb, a definition that makes God the most prolific abortionist by far."

              Last I heard, the "pro-choice" folk were trying to legalize very late abortions, or had already legalized them.

              "States that allow for late-term abortions with no state-imposed thresholds are:

              Alaska
              Colorado
              District of Columbia
              New Hampshire
              New Jersey
              New Mexico
              Oregon
              Vermont"

              https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/what-states-allow-late-term-abortion

              1. CC: By now your problem is familiar : The complete disconnect from the reality of people's lives inherent to the womb-control perspective. Lets look at the numbers :

                "According to the CDC, 91 percent of all abortions are performed in the first trimester and 98.7 percent of abortions are performed during the first 20 weeks. Using state data, it’s possible to roughly estimate the percentage of abortions performed in weeks 21-30. Above that, no records are kept, but the numbers are so tiny that they register as 0.00 percent"

                You see, there aren't massive numbers of late-term abortions in the states you list above. They don't exist there or anywhere else. And it was your side that first made late abortions a political battleground, despite the fact they start out as a tiny percentage and dwindle down to microscopic numbers with each successive week of pregnancy. And ignoring the fact they often result from tragic and brutally hard choices women face with their doctors.

                In a normal world, it wouldn't even be necessary to legally protect women dealing with such terrible medical decisions. In a normal world, simple human decency would be protection enough. But America's Taliban isn't interested in a normal world; the Right desperately needs late-term abortion as their only sure ground with public opinion. So that's why the laws are necessary: To protect small numbers of women from the Right's failure to find any other kind of effective propaganda.

                https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abortions-by-week-of-pregnancy/

                1. Mother Jones, eh?

                  20-week abortions, eh?

    1. "health issues that are incompatible with life or that will very much affect the babies quality of life"

      Next up: evaluating the quality of life of the elderly.

    2. "a more realistic poll"

      LOL Such un-biased questions. Quite neutral

      How about these:

      Should abortion be used as birth control?

      Do you think a woman should have multiple abortions?

      Is abortion ok when the reason is that the baby is going to be a girl?

  14. SIGN AND SYMBOL OF ACADEMIC HUBRIS: PIDGEONHOLISM AND ITS MOST BINARY FORM

    Here is an alternate formulation: For the great majority of American Academics ordinary plebes (okay, so that's a pleonasm) don't make sense, and that starts with their - the academics' - tidy reality-remote dichotomies such as black-o-white, yes-o-no, right-o-left. Not to mention always-right-never-wrong as a shining star of intellectual superiority.

    Called it acquired color blindness: Dichotomy over complexity!

    And moral ambiguity? Can't have that ... Leave it to the fiction writers and the weekend feuilleton.

    So ... who are the true and pure simpletons here?

    1. I haven’t seen the word pleonasm in a long time. I give you props for that.

  15. Most people probably don't distinguish "I want the Supreme Court to say" and "I want the law to say".

    Abortion isn't going away in Massachusetts any time soon no matter what the Supreme Court says about the existence of a constitutional right to abort.

    1. No ope who says that the Constitution is whatever SCOTUS says it is has any grounds to suggest that there's any difference between what "I want the Supreme Court to say" and what "I want the law to say".

  16. So...you're saying the public doesn't understand what *Roe* means?

    May ask who *does* know?

    1. People who take the time to read and parse the opinion?

  17. The first link in the article points to an article in Mosaic Magazine about Employment Division v. Smith.

  18. Most people think that overturning Roe v Wade would outlaw abortion across the country. Of course this is perception is encouraged by the media.

  19. A solution that satisfies no legal scholar but satisfies the public. First, affirm that Roe establishes that the state cannot prohibit abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. Second, say that Casey was wrong in saying that pre-viability was a limit on state regulation of abortion (since viability is a moving target) but correct that at some point the state could impose limits on abortion after viability. But since Casey didn't define the limits we now hold that the Mississippi post-15 week limitations are reasonable limits within the meaning of Casey.

    The Court could also note that the first trimester limitation is consistent with almost every first world country's limitations and also note that the reliance specified as one reason for res judicata (that women who rely on the pill would have a fall back if the pill failed) is satisfied by allowing abortion in the first trimester.

    Maybe the Court could coalesce around this approach (probably except Sotomayer) and it would the political arguments about Roe but allow states to put substantial limits on abortion. I fully understand that the argument for this resolution is as flimsy as a constitutional matter as were the rationales of the Court in Roe and the plurality in Casey. But it would be a pity if Roe were to be the over-riding political issue for the next fifty years.

    1. " But it would be a pity if Roe were to be the over-riding political issue for the next fifty years "

      Fifty years?

      Evidence (including the longstanding trajectory of American progress) indicates religion will not be a substantial influence in our nation's public debates for more than a couple of more decades.

      Which indicates anti-abortion zealots will be even less powerful than gun absolutists as the culture war continues to strengthen the liberal-libertarian mainstream.

      In about 20 years, Federalist Society meetings will fit in phone booths . . . if anyone can find a phone booth.

      1. Asshole is a broken record who insists on telling us endlesslly what he sees in his crystal ball after the snow stops falling on the raindeer. This has apparently been going on for years. Are there any meds for this extreme obsessive-compulsive disorder?

  20. As other commenters have pointed out, the poll results are not in tension as Professor Blackman posits. Whatever one thinks of the reasoning of Roe v. Wade, there is a strong societal interest in preserving access to abortion as a fundamental right. Reliance interests are critical. One in four women of childbearing age will have at least one abortion. American women have structured their lives around having personal autonomy and self-determination regarding control of their fertility. Compressing the window of availability to fifteen weeks would not result in the same societal upheaval that permitting states to criminalize abortion entirely would entail.

    1. Condom and Contraceptive Sense Anyone ?

      SB8 was passed during the regular session and then didn't go into effect for a few months (until Sep. 1, 2021). Meanwhile, there has been massive publicity about the policy change. So, what is all that talk about reliance interests? Texans are on notice.

      As if folks can't adjust their sexual behavior and contraceptive use to take account of the tighening of the abortion-as-fallback-birth-control regime?

      As for the religion stuff and trends, Europe is much more secular than the USA, and yet their abortion policies are more birth-and-baby-friendly (mostly more restrictive even than what is being sought in Dobbs).

  21. This term´s SCOTUS ruling in Dobbs may not be the last word on the validity of the Mississippi statute. If the Supreme Court rules that some pre-viability abortion bans are not constitutionally prohibited but other bans remain so -- such that a fifteen week ban may pass constitutional muster -- a remand to the District Court for additional discovery and development of a more expansive evidentiary record regarding the state´s asserted interests may be required. The District Court limited discovery to whether viability can occur at fifteen weeks, and the Court of Appeals ruled that that limitation was not an abuse of discretion.

  22. FWIW, a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that three-quarters of Americans say abortion access should be left to women and their doctors, while 20 percent say they should be regulated by law. The same poll found 60 percent for upholding Roe, while 27 percent of Americans say the court should overturn it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/11/16/post-abc-poll-abortion-supreme-court/

    That suggests to me that the individual rights of privacy and personal autonomy generically are more popular than the Roe decision itself.

    1. But for this guy "personal autonomy" is no restriction on frequent Jabs forever, I'd bet.

Please to post comments