The United States is on the cusp of becoming the authoritarian regime described by Margaret Atwood in The Handmaid’s Tale. Many aspects of this is because of Donald Trump, however when it comes to abortion the president who used to be pro-choice isn’t primarily responsible for the societal similarities with Atwood’s story when it comes how men rule over women’s bodies. He’s just going along with his far-right base. I hope we’ll soon see a reporter confront him about what he thinks of the Alabama ruling that makes ending a pregnancy tantmont to murder.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in his ruling yesterday, and the draconian anti-abortion law passed in Alabama (and mesaures about go into effect in several southern states) has moved the country one perilous step away from treating women the way the ruling class treated the handmaids in Atwood’s book.
If you aren’t familiar with the story, it is set in a future United States which has been defeated in a war and taken over by totalitarian male-dominated theocratic government where couples in the ruling class can’t have children and many other women are infertile. Thus fertile women are selected to be impregnated by the husbands in ritualized intercoure sessions where the wives are present partcipating in the loveless sex sessions.
This Daily Beast story describes the ramifcations of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling:
“In only 318 words, the arch-conservative laid out a roadmap for overturning decisions permitting abortion, same-sex marriage, and more..”
In 1992, the Supreme Court almost overturned Roe v Wade, but didn’t because the legal doctrine known as stare decisis, or “let the decision stand.”
Stare decisis is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” In short, it is the doctrine of precedent.
Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. According to the Supreme Court, stare decisis “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” In practice, the Supreme Court will usually defer to its previous decisions even if the soundness of the decision is in doubt. A benefit of this rigidity is that a court need not continuously reevaluate the legal underpinnings of past decisions and accepted doctrines. Moreover, proponents argue that the predictability afforded by the doctrine helps clarify constitutional rights for the public. Read more: Lex Legal Dictionary
From the Daily Beast:
In short, Justice Thomas’ theory of stare decisis is like a roadmap for how to overrule decisions one disagrees with. First, frame the disagreement as one over “quality” rather than principle. Second, trivialize the ways in which people rely on the law as it stands.
And third, with the stroke of a pen, wipe out constitutional rights that people like me mistakenly think we possess.
It is likely that the law passed in Alabama and similar swingeing anti-abortion laws in other states will be challenged by Planned Parenthood and other organizations (I expect these actions are in the works). This will end up in the Supreme Court where the only swing vote saving us could come from Chief Justice John Roberts.
---
Tuesday, May 14, 2019 · 3:03:06 PM +00:00 · HalBrown
Jennifer Rubin writes in The Washington Post today: Abortion extremists make fools of Kavanaugh defenders
We might see Roberts once again side with Roe precedent and avoid putting the court’s credibility at risk. If Roberts, along with Trump’s two appointees, sided with the states, however, the Supreme Court’s decision would set off a political firestorm. The potential to ban abortion in many states (or even more radically, for the entire country if Congress decides to act) would elevate abortion to a top-tier issue.
Republicans would be forced to wrestle with the results of their absolutist position and the backlash from women who have never lived in a country where safe and legal abortions were not available. The political damage to the GOP (outside deep-red states) could be severe, ruining chances for the party to hold onto more libertarian, western states, the Upper Midwest and the eastern seaboard.
Sorry about the misspelled word in the poll. You can’t simply edit a poll once it is online. You have to delete the entire poll and redo it. Of course, without spelling errors what would the grammar police have to pick on?