This is an interesting fear, since the GOP has had trifecta control of the Texas state government since 2003 🤷♂️ Can't say I blame the Democrats for any laws passed in Texas anytime recently...
@Lord Ratner I think you've argued in good faith here, cheers. I am not a lawyer, but here are a my thoughts on some of the topics you've posted about previously, in no specific order (too many to quote). Feel free to respond if you'd like, or just skip the #WallOfText and have a great day:
It seems like while you don't like abortion, you're basically pro-choice, along the lines of what Roe allowed, as modified by Casey. Early-term abortion is perhaps regrettable yet is allowed, but not late-term abortion, life of the mother medical exemptions notwithstanding. The exact definition of where the line falls has changed over time but is now IVO 15-21 weeks. Do you agree with that characterization?
In fact, this is where I fall. I'm "pro-choice" if you ask me in a survey but I've only personally been a part of two pregnancies and we have two children, so we've "chosen life" both times, easy call.
I am opposed to abortions after the point of fetal viability unless there's some threat to the life of the mother. The vast majority of abortions that take place in the US (approx. 95%) happen before 15 weeks, and 98% happen before 21 weeks. That is the status quo under Roe et al today and it feels like a fair line to say ok, that's the tipping point between a woman's freedom of choice and the fetus' freedom to have a life, both of which I can see the argument for.
Therefore why are we overturning an important right (in my view) and landmark precedent for the 2-5% of cases that are unsavory to my personal morals? Maybe you support the likely decision on Dobbs simply because you believe Roe was badly decided to begin with rather than because you are rabidly anti-abortion in all cases, and that's fair.
But don't be deceived, several state laws already on the books ban abortion entirely, from 0.001 weeks onward, and have no exemptions for rape, incest or the life/safety of the mother. Idaho and Texas come to mind there. Many others have full restrictions except for life of the mother situations, i.e. no timetable, no rape/incest exemptions. These laws will take effect immediately if Roe is overturned.
I get what you're saying in that states should have the right to legislate as they see fit, but the courts have always found limits to that - state and federal lawmakers aren't free to enact things that are not permissible under either their state or the federal constitutions, it's been that way from day one of our current system of government.
Ok so you can't enact things that are unconstitutional, and presently under Roe total abortion bans are unconstitutional, so moving a thing from one category to another is a big deal! Which I can see why maybe you've been mad all along if you think Roe was wrongly decided, and now the forthcoming Dobbs decision would just undue that past wrong. I disagree.
Granting a constitutionally protected right like Roe did is a major precedent that should not be overturned lightly, which is basically what Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB promised Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski (and the Democrats) in their SCOTUS appointment hearings. Sic "Roe is settled law" and etc. I don't remember exactly what Alito and Thomas said on the subject. Roberts at least seems to be signaling that he is anti-abortion but doesn't want to destroy the Roe precedent, and especially no in the way that Alito does, which IMHO threatens other rights as well.
If Roe is overturned for the reasons that Alito sketched out in the leaked draft opinion, I'm also very concerned it will open an enormous can of worms that will spill out into many other issues that everyday people will notice and care about.
If the 14th Amendment is essentially gutted, which is where I think we're headed, i.e. the Due Process Clause (and perhaps the Equal Protection Clause also?) no longer include unenumerated rights and really it only protects rights with a (sic) "long historical tradition" as Alito puts it, that would allow states to legislate away gay marriage, sodomy, and perhaps even reinstitute segregation in schools. I can think of some very recent times when banning gay marriage and sodomy were A+ cool and not so long ago when segregated schools were also perfectly fine in the eyes of both the law and the public. None of those rights are specifically enumerated in the federal constitution nor do they enjoy a "long historical tradition" in my view, and therefore are vulnerable under Alito's logic.
I for one don't want states to be able to get rid of the right to marry who I want, stick it in whatever hole I want, or send my kids to an inclusive and equal school with peers of all races/religions/etc., just because they don't like it, and I know basically all Democrats and even a sizable share of Republicans who share that view, especially ones < age 55.
I will bet you a bottle of fantastic Tennessee whiskey that there will be a state that looks at Alito's logic, passes a ban on gay marriage, and that such a ban would be upheld by the current makeup of SCOTUS because well now the 14th Amendment just ain't what it used to be. Let's give it 10 years, you can Manchester me on that one if you want.
Alito tries to says that's not on the table because abortion is a special case where there are X-factors blah blah blah, I don't believe it. Some state will argue passionately and honestly that they believe it's a huge moral imperative to preserve traditional marriage, and I think a state-level ban on gay marriage would pass muster if brought before SCOTUS again, overturning Obergefell. Despite what the polling says today, as recently as GWB's second term the GOP wanted to enact a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage! There are certainly crazy-ass state legislators who would be chomping at the bit to ban it in their state if they had the power to do so.
Final parting shot: I know you have not argued this, but others have argued vehemently that "life begins at fertilization, and all human rights for the unborn fetus begin there." Essentially any act that intentionally destroys a fertilized egg is a heinous crime. Got it, that is a coherent worldview, even if I don't share it.
Do we ban IVF treatments then? That process definitely involves destroying fertilized eggs, all in the name of actually getting the most viable one(s) implanted and successfully turned into a baby, often times for couples desperate to "choose life." If folks want to subscribe to the worldview that fertilized egg = full human with all the rights of you and I, IVF has to be banned unfortunately and they need to be honest about that.
FWIW this is the view of the Catholic Church (full disclosure that I am Catholic), and ok fair enough. But a lot of fairly hard-line pro-life protestant christians I know are fine with IVF and I'm struggling to understand their rationalization there.
Maybe it boils down to, "Look, I'm against things I don't like and think are bad and am fine with things I do like and think are good and I want the law to reflect that," with no underlying, coherent logical or legal throughline, and ok, that's probably the case honestly.
Enough for now, good talk. 🇺🇸