The majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito and was published in May.
In its official opinion, the court's conservative majority went beyond simply resolving the case before them and overturned both of the court's previous precedents.
They must be overruled by us. Alito wrote that the right to abortion is not protected by the constitution. The permanent resolution of a rancorous national controversy can't be brought about by forcing a settlement and telling the people to leave.
Alito argued that there is no tradition in the U.S. of a right to abortion and the lack of such protections undermines the Supreme Court's conclusion that abortion rights were implicit in a constitutional right to privacy.
The court's five-justice majority cautioned that their momentous decision to retreat from abortion does not mean other court decisions are in jeopardy.
He wrote that there should be no doubt on the precedents that don't concern abortion.
Four justices from the court's liberal wing joined together in a single fiery dissent to warn against the court's majority action.
No choice is being made withdrawing a woman's right to decide. The majority of the court wrenched the choice from women and gave it to the States, according to the justices. For the past 50 years, women have depended on the two of them. They have never heard of anything else. Power, control, and dignity will be lost when they disappear.
The court's liberals predicted that the Republican-appointed majority's willingness to overrule a nearly fifty year old precedent boded ill for other decisions relied on by Americans and for respect for the legal system.
It makes the court look aggressive and grasping. Today's decision takes aim at the rule of law and we fear it.
Justice Clarence Thomas' view of what that assurance meant seemed certain to fuel fears that rulings many Americans rely on could be next to be axed.
In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell, according to a solo concurring written by Thomas. We have a duty to correct the error.
The court might still have rights that are based on other rationales, according to Thomas. The question is whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the plethora of rights that our substantive due process cases have created.
Roberts argued that the court should have upheld Mississippi's 15-week limit and left questions about the constitutionality of tighter restrictions to the future.
Roberts isn't sure if a ban on abortion from the moment of conception should be treated the same as a ban after 15 weeks. The question we granted review to answer was whether the previously recognized abortion right bars all abortion restrictions prior to viability. There is no need to go further in determining this case.
Roberts' analysis of the legal issues was little more than a historical footnote because he was unable to win over any other justice to that position. His stance in favor of Mississippi's law left the court's final tally on the case at 6-3, with a closer 4-5 split in favor of reversing the decision.
The text of the constitution doesn't refer to abortion, according to the judge. The Constitution protects rights that are deeply ingrained in this Nation's history and tradition and that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. The right to abortion is not a part of American history. The constitution isn't pro-life or pro-choice on the issue of abortion.
Some people celebrated with cheers to abolish abortion, while others were crying and chanting to destroy the court. The crowd was quiet in the early moments after the decision was made.
As the House prepared to vote after the decision, many Democratic women lawmakers were distraught. Some members made their way to the court, including Sara Jacobs and David Cicilline.
Anti-abortion-rights protesters chased Alexandria from the scene before she could get to the barricades.
For more than four decades, conservative legal activists have worked to transform the federal judiciary and correct what they viewed as liberal excesses by judges and justices in the 1960's and 70's.
President Donald Trump outsourcing the search for Supreme Court nominees to right-leaning groups was a result of the influence that leaders and founding members of such groups had over Supreme Court appointments.
The impact a single president can have on the nation's highest court is shown in the ruling. The three justices who were appointed by Trump were part of the decision to overturn the abortion law. Supreme Court justices who supported abortion rights were replaced by the two new justices.
The political consequences of the decision are likely to be significant, with the nation getting a very concrete lesson in how elections can lead to major shifts in the judiciary and that justices can not only expand rights, but contract them as well.
The defeat of abortion rights is expected to motivate women and liberals in the upcoming elections. The issue could provide a boost to Democrats in this November's contest, where Republicans are expected to enjoy a heavy advantage.
It is difficult to say if the high court will become a kind of catalyzing issue for Democrats that it has been for Republicans.
While there are some hints of electoral consequences related to past changes in abortion laws at the state level, sharply conservative decisions from the Supreme Court in the past couple of decades in areas like voting rights and campaign finance don't seem to have affected the decisions of individual voters
It is certain that the abortion ruling will have a direct impact on tens of millions of people in the short term.
Twenty-two states are poised to immediately ban the procedure in most or all circumstances, either because they have abortion bans still on their books from before Roe was decided in 1973, or because they have passed so-calledtrigger laws since then mandating that abortion be banned if and when it is legalized
Depending on how state officials choose to enforce them, abortion providers and even patients could face jail time.
Other states are poised to impose restrictions that fall short of full prohibitions on abortion but could still put it out of reach for many people.
Conservative states are likely to pass more of these laws in the months ahead, and several have already called for a special session to do so as early as this summer. Several states, including Michigan and Montana, are being sued to see if abortion remains accessible there.
Some progressive states have rushed to pass new legal protections for the procedure, create new financial supports for low-income people within the state, and expand the abortion provider workforce ahead of what they expect will be a flood of abortions.
Many people won't be able to travel out of state to end a pregnancies because they can't afford to do so, can't find child care, can't take time off work or face other barriers
According to one study, between 94,000 and 144,000 people who want abortions won't be able to get one in the first year after the case is decided. There will be a decline in the number of abortions in the US in 2020. Another study said that maternal mortality will go up.
Lisa Harris is an abortion provider and professor at the University of Michigan. People with the most resources will be able to end their pregnancies. The people with the least resources have the same health problems. The sickest people will need the most care.
The report was contributed to by two people.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
