Hundreds of thousands of Americans expected to turn out for pro-choice protests

With the US supreme court apparently poised to overturn the 1973 landmark decision which made abortion legal, hundreds of thousands of people across America are planning to take to the streets to protest the looming decision.

A coalition of groups such as Planned Parenthood, UltraViolet, MoveOn and the Women’s March are organizing Saturday’s demonstrations, whose rallying cry is “Bans Off Our Bodies”. More than 370 protests are planned, including in Washington DC, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

The demonstrations come after the leak on 2 May of a draft opinion showing five conservatives on the nine-justice supreme court had voted to reverse their predecessors’ ruling in Roe v Wade nearly 50 years ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/14/protests-abortion-rights-cities-roe

I can't believe this is happening -- it's nearly as bad as considering, for example, making slavery legal again.

Ben Reilly wrote:

With the US supreme court apparently poised to overturn the 1973 landmark decision which made abortion legal, hundreds of thousands of people across America are planning to take to the streets to protest the looming decision.

A coalition of groups such as Planned Parenthood, UltraViolet, MoveOn and the Women’s March are organizing Saturday’s demonstrations, whose rallying cry is “Bans Off Our Bodies”. More than 370 protests are planned, including in Washington DC, New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.

The demonstrations come after the leak on 2 May of a draft opinion showing five conservatives on the nine-justice supreme court had voted to reverse their predecessors’ ruling in Roe v Wade nearly 50 years ago.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/14/protests-abortion-rights-cities-roe

I can't believe this is happening -- it's nearly as bad as considering, for example, making slavery legal again.

Even RBG warned about this.

The SCOTUS had to twist the 14th into knots to see it stating that abortion was a right.

And if it does, then a local and state laws limiting drug use amd prostitution are too.

Congress should have codified it like they did the Civil Rights act.


Roe v Wade is going to be overturned and it's getting kicked back to the legislatures and voters, which is exactly where it should be based on the constitution as written.

"As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible," former Blackmun clerk Edward Lazarus wrote in 2002. "I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe's author like a grandfather." Lazarus argued that "a constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent—at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed."

Carney quotes similar comments from University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt, Harvard law professors Alan Dershowitz and Cass Sunstein, and journalists such as William Saletan, Benjamin Wittes, Richard Cohen, Jeffrey Rosen, and Michael Kinsley. "Although I am pro-choice," Kinsley wrote in 2004, "I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching."



https://reason.com/2022/05/10/there-is-a-reason-why-roe-v-wades-defenders-focus-on-its-results-rather-than-its-reasoning/

We talked about this a bit on Facebook, Maddog, but I'm utterly uninterested in the legal nerdery. This is about bodily autonomy.

If you want to bring drugs and prostitution into it, that's fine, because that's also about whether we have the right to do with our bodies as we see fit.

I'm sure you've heard of Murray Rothbard, and I wouldn't be surprised if you know that his opinion on abortion was: "no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body." Now, for me that's a bit harsh, but surely nobody can be forced to bear a child they don't want.

Ben Reilly wrote:We talked about this a bit on Facebook, Maddog, but I'm utterly uninterested in the legal nerdery. This is about bodily autonomy.

If you want to bring drugs and prostitution into it, that's fine, because that's also about whether we have the right to do with our bodies as we see fit.

I'm sure you've heard of Murray Rothbard, and I wouldn't be surprised if you know that his opinion on abortion was: "no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body." Now, for me that's a bit harsh, but surely nobody can be forced to bear a child they don't want.

That would categorise a new born baby as being a 'parasite' too... As they cannot survive without suckling for 6 months... And could not survive for longer without drawing on the care of others for much longer ..

You are all correct. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was decided on the wrong grounds, but it came to the right conclusion.

The issue of framing determines the issue of who gets heard: in the case of abortion, a woman or an unborn fetus? It’s privacy interests vs. life interests. You can see why Justice Blackmun went the way of privacy; it was easier to build a case for privacy, than to determine what is life.

Roe was decided on ‘right to privacy’ grounds – something that is not in the Constitution – when it should have been decided on grounds of ‘life’ – which is, in the 5th Amendment. Right-to-Lifers maintain that a fetus is a person, and should be accorded the constitutional rights of a person, emphasizing life.

But life is the really important concern. So the question turns to who, or what is a person? If you are going to determine constitutional rights, you’re going to determine what is a person(?), anyway. Well, a person is one who has life. So, what is life?

Whether by Constitutional Law, or Gray’s Anatomy, in a case about abortion you are going to end up asking What is Life.

Ben Reilly wrote:We talked about this a bit on Facebook, Maddog, but I'm utterly uninterested in the legal nerdery. This is about bodily autonomy.

If you want to bring drugs and prostitution into it, that's fine, because that's also about whether we have the right to do with our bodies as we see fit.

I'm sure you've heard of Murray Rothbard, and I wouldn't be surprised if you know that his opinion on abortion was: "no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body." Now, for me that's a bit harsh, but surely nobody can be forced to bear a child they don't want.

It's that legal nerdery that somewhat keeps the government from just making up shit as they see fit.

There is nothing nerdy about using the legislative process to pass laws as opposed to using the courts to pretend they see something that doesn't exist..