can abortion rights survive if Roe v. Wade dies?

[cluebyfour]

[cross-posted from libertarianism]

QandO has an interesting bit on Roe v. Wade, quoting Richard Cohen's column from the Washington Post:

Conservatives-and some liberals-have long argued that the right to an abortion ought to be regulated by states. They have a point. My guess is that the more populous states would legalize it, the smaller ones would not, and

Comments

[ilcylic]

*shrug*

I suspect you already know what I'm about to say.

But I'll say it anyway.

The Mann Act is an abomination. So is the vast overstretching of the Interstate Commerce Clause. The right answer is to fix both of those things, not violate the constitution again as a workaround.

-Ogre

[cluebyfour]

Actually, fixing the "vast overstretching" of the commerce clause would automatically fix the Mann Act, since it could no longer use it as a justification (and it has no other justification at the Federal level).

What I'd say is that I'll support overturning Roe v. Wade when SCOTUS stops using the commerce clause to grant the Feds license to regulate anything they don't like.

[mama_gryphon]

Roe v. Wade is not, I repeat NOT, about abortion rights per se but about a woman's right to privacy when it comes to medical procedures between her and her doctor. Technically it has nothing to do with abortion specifically. So when you get down to it, the question is the Supreme Court going to overturn a right to privacy and I don't think they will -- but that entirely depends on the facts of the cases they choose to hear. People seem to forget that.

The Interstate Commerce Clause is everyone's bastard back door. But there are limits on it and I don't think SCOTUS is going to allow regulation of abortion using the Interstate Commerce Clause. That would be a stretch beyond Stretch Armstrong -- but stranger things have happened like what they did with the eminent domain clause.

medical privacy

[gentlemaitresse]

And yet we don't have any medical privacy regarding drugs or suicide. I'm having a hard time believing that Roe v. Wade is about a woman's right to privacy when it comes to medical procedures.

Re: medical privacy

[cluebyfour]

Nevertheless, that was how the case was argued, and that was the precedent of case law (such as the Griswold decision, which overturned a Connecticut law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives to married couples) used in the decision.

What the Feds have done with regards to drugs is rely on the commerce clause to justify their regulation, and SCOTUS has agreed with them. It hasn't been argued as a privacy issue, at least not in the case of Raich--although no one has ever said SCOTUS is consistent in its application of constitutional principles.

Re: medical privacy

[mama_gryphon]

Well, that's what it's about -- privacy. That was the only reason the SCOTUS heard the case. They didn't hear the case to decide whether or not abortion was legal.