The Supreme Court ruled Friday that Americans no longer have a constitutional right to abortion, a [watershed decision that overturned Roe v. Wade](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/05/07/supreme-court-abortion-overrule-precedent/7409681001/) and erased reproductive rights in place for nearly five decades.

This thread will be closely monitored by the entire moderator team. Our rules be will be **strictly** enforced. Please review the rules prior to posting.

**Any calls for violence, incivility, or bigoted language of any kind will result in an immediate ban.**

[Official Opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf)

28 comments

  1. Tragic day. We all knew they were going to do it due to the leak.

    I’m curious how this will affect elections, and I’m also very curious if this will cause an exodus from some states.

  2. I’d honestly rather read the entire court case by itself in its entirety as opposed to hearing the media’s take on it.

  3. Assholes. We knew this was the end game, but it still hurts. All we can do right now is hold out, help others around us, and fucking vote this November.

  4. This country has slipped straight to hell. Not only will Americans lose the right to abortion. They lose their right to pregnancy. IVF clinics have been shouting this, yet no one listened. The Supreme Court has became a fucking joke.

  6. The right to an abortion was never in the constitution, the decision should have always been left up to lawmakers. Some states can limit or ban abortions and other will have 9 month or post birth abortions

  8. Set back this country even farther than it is. Im running out of steam saying things will get berter

  9. Fuck.

    I wasn’t as outraged as some of my peers, not because I’m less pro-choice but because I have seen this as an inevitability since they started playing extra hardball with Obama’s last SCOTUS nomination. So I wasn’t remotely caught off-guard.

    But it’s still sucky to hear it is finalized now.

  11. Well fuck. It was great while it lasted and I’m lucky to live in a State where we will gladly accept anyone seeking one to legally have one done….

  12. If you are angry about this and able to vote but did not (or voted R) you can sit down.

  13. Even RBG realized that the original Roe decision, and particularly the Casey decision, was legally extremely dubious.

    I truly believe that the Roe decision was an impediment to legalizing abortion through the regular democratic process, *which was already happening* in numerous states at the time, and would happen in the last 60s and 70s in other Western societies like France in 1975, the UK in 1967, Sweden in 1974, etc.

  14. This is truly horrifying. Not only do women lose the right to bodily autonomy, the majority opinion explicitly states that the court “should” re-examine the cases defending the right to birth control, gay marriage, and the invalidation of anti-sodomy laws. All at the behest of an extremist right-wing minority in a country that has had exactly 1 republican win a popular vote for the presidency since 1988. Horrible day to be an American.

  15. It’s the right decision even if the consequences and effects will be unfortunate (states criminalizing abortion). In a democratic/representative country, bad laws are inevitable and the people and their representatives have a right to pursue them in the absence of an actual constitutional right protecting the people from said laws. The idea of a judiciary acting as a council of elders vetoing every bad law, is unworkable in the long term as we are now seeing.

    I’m maybe overly optimistic but I think that in a decade or two, the issue will be more or less resolved with legislatures ending up with similar moderate/compromising laws as to those in Europe. With no Roe v. Wade, politicians will have to actually legislate, enforce the laws and face their voters when it comes to the issue; instead of being able to pass laws just for the sake of political posturing that they know will never be implemented because of the courts.

  16. Horrible day for women’s lives, freedom, and dignity. But that’s the goal.

  17. More people will come around to the idea that SCOTUS has always been a political institution despite it’s apolitical structure.

    Laboratories typically aren’t great for mice.

    States rights to decide if non-heterosexual people should be treated equally as heterosexuals will be next. State will pass laws that will embolden harassment.

    People will write off ever living in certain states more often and with good reason. 

    Alito is an idiot.

  18. I’ve already seen men calling women dramatic for our reaction to this. Misogyny is a disease.

  19. This shouldn’t be a shock to anyone paying attention. The GOP has been aiming for this since the day it passed, and they have been very successful at working towards it. Mitch McConnell, much the turtle he is, has gone slow and steady to put people in the judiciary while the public wasn’t paying attention. The people interpreting the laws now, while interpreting them in valid ways, were selected to ensure they would vote particular ways (as is done by both parties). Congress may cause all the media on a regular basis, but this is a textbook lesson on how each branch of government is important, and you need to pay attention to the whole thing.

    Gay rights are next. Probably Loving v. Virginia at some point. Hell, I wouldn’t be surprised if they come for Marbury. Which, while horrible for the country, would be very funny to see SCOTUS rule “guess we actually don’t matter”.

  20. > For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, includ- ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any sub- stantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., con- curring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstra- bly erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myr- iad rights that our substantive due process cases have gen- erated.

    Clarence Thomas is coming for same sex marriage next

  22. Question from an ignorant foreigner: Aren’t your “left-wing”/progressive party currently in government?

    How come they would pass this?

    e: thank you all for explaining

  23. Clarence Thomas’s concurrence is absolutely horrifying. It specifically names Lawrence v Texas as an opinion the Court needs to address and overturn. I’m glad nobody joined in that opinion

  24. Tl;dr: The argument in the original case (not RvW) was that it was a *constitutional right* and part of a “long-standing American tradition” to have an abortion. SC determined that since abortion is not sex-based, it falls under health and safety, which is not covered by the constitution and therefore falls under the jurisdiction of the state’s lawmakers.

    Not trying to argue one way or the other, just summing up what the document said

  26. Can’t say I’m happy about this, but it was expected. I think I’m going to try and stay off reddit for the next couple of days, the amounts of salt are going to be mind numbing.

  27. Who cares? It sends it back to the states to decide and the worst that happens if you cross a state line to get one. Get birth control people.

    Cant wait for the “peaceful protests” to start burning cities down again over ignorance though

  28. doesnt this just pass the decision onto the states? Is anyone working on creating a charity service so women can get to states with legal aboritons?

Leave a Reply
You May Also Like